[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 202 (Friday, October 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58650-58651]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23067]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD22-1-000]

Larry Lempka; Notice of Preliminary Determination of a Qualifying
Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and Motions To
Intervene

    On October 14, 2021, Larry Lempka filed a notice of intent to
construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, pursuant to section
30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). The proposed Lempka Farms Hydropower
Project would have an installed capacity of 5.9 kilowatts (kW), and
would be located along an irrigation pipeline on the applicant's
property near Berthoud, Larimer County, Colorado.
    Applicant Contact: Timothy Olsen, Advanced Energy Systems, LLC,
1428 S Humboldt St, Denver, CO 80210,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    FERC Contact: Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].
    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) An approximately 10-foot by 10-foot
powerhouse; (2) one pump-as-turbine unit with a capacity of 5.9 kW; and
(3) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an
estimated annual generation of approximately 6.7 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Satisfies (y/
      Statutory provision              Description              n)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A)................  The conduit the          Y
                                  facility uses is a
                                  tunnel, canal,
                                  pipeline, aqueduct,
                                  flume, ditch, or
                                  similar manmade water
                                  conveyance that is
                                  operated for the
                                  distribution of water
                                  for agricultural,
                                  municipal, or
                                  industrial consumption
                                  and not primarily for
                                  the generation of
                                  electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i).............  The facility is          Y
                                  constructed, operated,
                                  or maintained for the
                                  generation of electric
                                  power and uses for
                                  such generation only
                                  the hydroelectric
                                  potential of a non-
                                  federally owned
                                  conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii)............  The facility has an      Y
                                  installed capacity
                                  that does not exceed
                                  40 megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii)...........  On or before August 9,   Y
                                  2013, the facility is
                                  not licensed, or
                                  exempted from the
                                  licensing requirements
                                  of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: The proposed Lempka Farms Hydropower
Project will not alter the primary purpose of the conduit, which is
used to distribute water for agricultural irrigation. Therefore, based
upon the above criteria, Commission staff preliminarily determines that
the proposal satisfies the requirements for a qualifying conduit
hydropower facility, which is not required to be licensed or exempted
from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 30
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system

at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may send a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
MD 20852. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: The Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through the Commission's website at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(i.e., CD22-1) in the docket number field to access the document. You
may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. Copies of the notice of
intent can be obtained directly from the applicant. At this time, the
Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference
Room due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email
[email protected]. For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 18, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23067 Filed 10-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7072-7077]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02080]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395; FRL-9904-24-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Revisions to Utah Administrative Code--Permit: New and Modified
Sources

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to partially approve and partially disapprove State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on
September 15, 2006. The September 15, 2006 revisions contain new,
amended and renumbered rules in Utah Administrative Code (UAC) Title R-
307 that pertain to the issuance of Utah air quality permits. The
September 15, 2006 revisions supersede and entirely replace an October
9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions in Utah's air
quality permit program, and partially supersede and replace a September
20, 1999 submittal. In this action, we are fully approving the SIP
revisions in the September 15, 2006 submittal with the following
exceptions: we are disapproving the State's rules R307-401-7 (Public
Notice), R307-401-9(b) and portions of (9)(c) (Small Source Exemption),
R307-401-12 (Reduction in Air Contaminants), and R307-410-5
(Documentation of Ambient Air Impacts for Hazardous Air Pollutants); we
are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6 (Stack
Heights and Dispersion Techniques); and we are not acting on R307-101-
2, R307-401-14, R307-401-15, and R307-401-16 for the reasons explained
in this action. This action is being taken under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective March 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0395. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Changes From our Proposed Action and Basis for our Final Action
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The words Minor NSR mean NSR established under section 110 of
the Act and 40 CFR 51.160.
    (iv) The initials NSR mean new source review, a phrase intended to
encompass the stationary source regulatory programs that regulate the
construction and modification of stationary sources as provided under
CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), CAA Title I, parts C and D, and 40 CFR 51.160
through 51.166.
    (v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the
context indicates otherwise.

I. Background

    The CAA (section 110(a)(2)(C)) and 40 CFR 51.160 require states to
have legally enforceable procedures in their SIPs to prevent
construction or modification of a source if it would violate any SIP
control strategies or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Such minor new source
review (NSR) programs are for pollutants from stationary sources that
do not require Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or
nonattainment NSR permits. A state may customize the requirements of
its minor NSR program as long as the program meets minimum
requirements.
    On September 15, 2006, Utah submitted revisions to its minor source
NSR program. The September 15, 2006 revisions supersede and entirely
replace an October 9, 1998 submittal that initially revised provisions
in Utah's air quality permit program, and partially supersede and
replace a September 20, 1999 submittal that renumbered the provisions
in the October 9, 1998 submittal. A cross-walk table comparing

the provisions from the October 9, 1998, September 20, 1999, and
September 15, 2006 submittals is included in the docket for this
action.
    Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal: (1) Revised R307-101-2
(Definitions); (2) added a new section R307-401 (Notice of Intent and
Approval Order); (3) added a new section R307-410 (Permits: Emission
Impact Analysis); and (4) moved rules in State rule section R307-413
(Permit: Exemptions and Special Provisions) to R307-401.\1\ The purpose
of the September 15, 2006 submittal was to separate minor source
permitting and modeling requirements from major source permitting and
modeling requirements within Title R307.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Utah repealed R307-413 in 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35181), we proposed to act on Utah's
September 15, 2006 submittal, with the following exceptions: (1) R307-
101-2 (Definitions); and (2) R307-401-14 (Used Oil Fuel Burned for
Energy Recovery), R307-401-15 (Air Strippers and Soil Venting
Projects), and R307-401-16 (De minimis Emissions From Soil Aeration
Projects). As we explained in our notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR
35183), we need not act on R307-101-2 as submitted on September 15,
2006, because on September 2, 2008, we approved a superseding version
of R307-101-2 that Utah adopted on February 6, 2008. See 73 FR 51222.
We need not act on R307-401-14 through 16 in this action because we
previously acted on such provisions. See 77 FR 37859 (June 25, 2012)
(notice of proposed rulemaking); notice of final rulemaking, signed
October 19, 2012, copy included in the docket for this action.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Our notice of final rulemaking has not been published yet in
the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our June 12, 2013 proposed action, we proposed to: (1) Approve
R307-401-1 through 6, R307-401-8, R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b)
and the portions of paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b)), R307-
401-10 through 11, R307-401-13, R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1
through 4; (2) disapprove R307-401-7, R307-401-9(b) and portions of
9(c) that reference (9)(b), R307-401-12, and R307-410-5; and (3)
partially approve and partially disapprove R307-410-6.\3\ We provided a
detailed explanation of the bases for our proposal. See 78 FR 35183-
35188. We invited comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a
30-day comment period. The comment period ended on July 12, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ It would have been more appropriate to say we were proposing
to limitedly approve and limitedly disapprove R307-410-6. Limited
approval/disapproval is the approach EPA has used historically where
a rule provision meets some of the statutory and regulatory
requirements and will strengthen the SIP, but does not meet all of
the statutory and regulatory requirements, thus warranting
disapproval. It is used in lieu of partial approval/partial
disapproval where the compliant and non-compliant rule provisions
are not separable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this action, we are responding to the comments we received and
taking final rulemaking action on the enumerated rules from the State's
September 15, 2006 submittal.

II. Response to Comments

    In response to our June 12, 2013 proposed rulemaking, we received
one comment letter from Joro Walker and Rob Dubuc on behalf of Utah
Physicians for a Healthy Environment and Western Resource Advocates
(collectively ``Utah Physicians''). In this section, we summarize their
comments and provide our responses.
    Comment: R307-401-1 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval.
    Comment: R307-401-2 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-3 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval.
    Comment: R307-401-4 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision with the following exception:

    401-4(1), which currently states that ``[a]ny control apparatus
installed on an installation shall be adequately and properly
maintained,'' should be revised to state: ``[a]ny control apparatus
installed on an installation shall be adequately and properly
maintained and operated[.]'' After all, unless a control apparatus
is properly operated, maintenance is likely to be of little
consequence.

    Response: We conclude that the comment does not provide a basis for
EPA to disapprove the regulation. While the language suggested by the
commenters might strengthen the regulation, we find no basis to
conclude that the language is required by the Act or our regulations.
For example, CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires that the SIP include a
program for the regulation of the modification and construction of any
stationary source as necessary to assure the NAAQS are achieved. We do
not find that the addition of the words ``and operated'' is necessary
to assure the NAAQS are achieved. Similarly, our minor source NSR
regulations, at 40 CFR 51.160 and 51.161 are relatively general in
nature. They do not require that a state's minor source NSR regulations
require any specific operation and maintenance procedures. Furthermore,
to a substantial degree, it is the permit process itself, embodied in
Utah's regulations, that provides the vehicle to identify and make
enforceable specific measures necessary to protect the NAAQS. Any
measures established through the SIP-approved permit process become
federally enforceable, and specific emission limits are likely to be a
more effective measure to ensure proper source operation than a general
requirement to operate properly. We note, for example, that Utah's
regulations include a requirement that sources meet BACT. See R307-401-
8(1)(a). Finally, we think that the language ``shall be adequately and
properly maintained'' could be interpreted broadly enough to include
the ongoing operation of the control apparatus.
    Comment: R307-401-5 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision with the following two exceptions:

    1. 40 CFR 160(c)(1) requires that the legal provisions in
question ``must provide for the submission, by the owner or operator
of the building, facility, structure, or installation to be
constructed or modified, of such information on . . . [t]he nature
and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or emitted by
associated mobile sources.'' This requirement is missing from Rule
401-5.
    2. 401-5 should include a requirement that the source identify,
including by providing flow or process diagrams, the location and
characteristics of each emission unit that is a part of the
building, facility, structure, or installation. The rule should
mandate that source provide the ``[e]xpected composition and
physical characteristics of [the] effluent stream both before and
after treatment by any control apparatus, including emission rates,
volume, temperature, air contaminant types, and concentration of air
contaminants'' for each emission unit. Without this information, the
public is not in a position to provide meaningful comment on the
adequacy of the proposed permits, particularly whether the permits
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
Similarly, without this information, Utah is not in a position to
determine whether the project will result in a violation of
applicable portions of the control strategy or interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.

    Response: 1. 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) requires the state program to
provide for the owner or operator of the building,

facility, structure, or installation to submit ``such information on .
. . [t]he nature and amounts of emissions to be emitted by it or
emitted by associated mobile sources . . . as may be necessary to
permit the State or local agency to make the determination referred to
in paragraph (a) of this section.'' EPA concludes that R307-401
complies with this requirement. R307-401 applies to indirect sources as
well as direct sources of pollution. R307-401-3(1)(a) and (b). R307-
401-2 defines indirect source as ``a building, structure, facility or
installation which attracts or may attract mobile source activity that
results in emission of a pollutant for which there is a national
standard.'' R307-401-5 requires any person subject to R307-401 to
submit a notice of intent to the executive secretary. The notice of
intent must include, among other things, ``a description of the nature
of the processes involved,'' ``the type and quantity of fuels
employed,'' the ``[e]xpected composition and physical characteristics
of [the] effluent stream both before and after treatment by any control
apparatus, including emission rates, volume, temperature, air
contaminant types, and concentration of air contaminants,'' and ``other
information necessary to appraise the possible effects of the
effluent.'' R307-401-5(2)(a), (b), and (e). Finally, R307-401-5(k)
requires that the notice of intent include ``[a]ny other information
necessary to determine if the proposed source or modification will be
in compliance with Title R307.'' As required by 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1),
the language of R307-401-5 clearly requires the notice of intent to
include information on the nature and amount of the proposed source's
emissions. Given that R307-401 specifically applies to indirect sources
and requires them to submit notices of intent as well, we find that the
language of R307-401-5 applies to information regarding the nature and
amount of emissions from associated mobile sources as well. We also
note that the requirement in 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) is modified by the
language following 40 CFR 51.160(c)(2), which reads, ``as may be
necessary to permit the State or local agency'' to determine whether
the construction or modification would violate the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    2. We do not agree that the regulation must explicitly require the
information the commenters describe or that the lack of the desired
specificity renders the regulation deficient. Neither the CAA nor our
minor source NSR regulations specifically dictate the level of
specificity the commenters seek. We note, however, that the language of
the State's regulation is broad enough to encompass much of the type of
information the commenters seek, and that the State often may need
unit-by-unit information to properly conduct the required analysis.
Also, the commenters have a voice through the State's public
participation process. If they believe more specific information is
needed regarding a particular application, they can inform the State of
their views. We conclude that R307-401-5 adequately addresses the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.160(c)(1) and (2).
    Comment: R307-401-6 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-7 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
disapprove this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our disapproval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-8 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision with the following two exceptions:

    1. 401-8(2), which currently states that the ``approval order
will require that all pollution control equipment be adequately and
properly maintained.'' As indicated above, proper operation of the
equipment should also be required.
    2. 401-8(4) is improper and does not adequately provide Utah
with the opportunity to determine whether the project will result in
a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. This is
because approval of an initial stage may prevent the imposition of
requirements on later stages that have been precluded by that
initial construction, thereby biasing the outcome of the permitting
process. For example, the completion of the initial stage may
influence what is BACT for the subsequent stages.

    Response: 1. For the reasons stated in our response to the comment
above regarding R307-401-4(1), EPA disagrees that R307-401-8(2) is
deficient or that disapproval is required.
    2. EPA disagrees that 401-8(4) is improper and does not adequately
provide Utah with the opportunity to determine whether a staged project
will result in a violation of applicable portions of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. All
phases of a staged construction project are still required to submit a
notice of intent, as outlined in R307-401-5, which provides the public
and the State the opportunity to determine whether the project will
result in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. In addition,
R307-401-8(4) requires previous determinations under R307-401-8(1) and
(2) to be reviewed and modified as appropriate prior to the
commencement and construction of each individual phase of the proposed
source or modification. This would allow the State the opportunity to
review the most recent plans and information in order to determine the
most appropriate control requirements during subsequent phases of the
project.
    Comment: R307-401-9 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
disapprove aspects of this provision. Utah Physicians disagree with
EPA's position that: ``R307-401-9 contains a safeguard that a source
shall no longer be exempt and is required to submit a notice of intent
if its actual emissions exceed the thresholds listed in R307-401-
9(1)(a).'' The commenters state that R307-401-9 does not require the
source to monitor or report actual emissions. Rather, under R307-401-
9(3), the source need only provide: a description of the nature of the
processes involved, equipment, anticipated quantities of materials
used, the type and quantity of fuel employed and nature and quantity of
the finished product; identification of expected emissions; estimated
annual emission rates; any control apparatus used; and typical
operating schedule. The commenters state that the rule does not require
the reporting of actual emissions or specify that the information in
the ``registry'' be updated, for example, annually. The commenters
state that R307-401-9 does not give the state the opportunity to
determine whether the project--or changes to the project--will result
in a violation of applicable portions of the control strategy or
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    Response: We disagree with the commenters that the provisions of
the regulation that we are approving are not sufficient. Under our
minor source NSR regulations, a state's regulation must identify the
types and sizes of facilities, buildings, structures, or installations
which will be subject to review and must discuss the basis for
determining which facilities will be subject to review. 40 CFR
51.160(e). We have reviewed the thresholds that Utah has established in
R307-401-9 and the basis for those thresholds and determined they are
reasonable based on a number of factors. See our proposal at 78 FR
35184-35185. In our proposal, we noted that an exempt source whose
actual

emissions later exceed the thresholds would be required to submit a
notice of intent. The State's registration program for sub-threshold
minor sources will allow the State to track such sources to some
degree. However, there is no requirement in our minor source NSR
regulations that sources whom the State has appropriately determined
should not be subject to review due to their small size must monitor
and report actual emissions. Insisting on such action for such small
sources would tend to defeat the purpose of the exemption and overwhelm
the State with unnecessary information. Like numerous other standards
and permitting requirements, sources are expected to self-determine
whether they are subject to the applicable requirements of the
regulation and comply with them. If a source ignores the requirements
of the regulation, or erroneously concludes it is not subject to them,
the source is subject to potential enforcement action. We are not
convinced that the State is required to alter this approach for
purposes of R307-401-9.
    Comment: R307-401-10 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-11 Utah Physicians take no position on EPA's
proposal relative to this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-12 Utah Physicians agree with EPA's proposal to
disapprove this provision for the reasons EPA provides. Utah Physicians
further note that the public must be provided with the opportunity to
provide meaningful comment on the determination of whether the project
does indeed reduce or eliminate air contaminants. Therefore, public
notice should be required. Similarly, the public must be able to
participate in the decision to modify any existing permit or to ensure
that the reductions or eliminations are enforceable.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our disapproval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-13 Utah Physicians agree with EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-18 Utah Physicians take no position on this
provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment.
    Comment: R307-401-19 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-401-20 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
approve this provision.
    Response: We acknowledge receipt of this comment and the support
for our approval of this provision.
    Comment: R307-410 Utah Physicians support EPA's proposal to
disapprove aspects of this rule for the reasons EPA states. In
addition, Utah Physicians urge EPA to disapprove other aspects of this
provision because they do not provide Utah with the opportunity to
determine whether a project will result in a violation of applicable
portions of the control strategy or interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS. Utah has repeatedly maintained that sources
in nonattainment areas do not need to undertake emission impact
analysis and do not need to model the impact of any nonattainment
pollution on the airshed. For example, Utah does not require a source
located in a PM2.5 nonattainment area to model the impact of
an increase in PM2.5 emissions. EPA must disapprove the rule
so it can be rewritten to more clearly require modeling of emissions in
nonattainment areas. EPA has always understood R307-410 to apply to all
sources, including those in nonattainment areas, and has repeatedly
indicated that emission impact analysis in nonattainment areas for
nonattainment pollutants is required by the Clean Air Act. Without such
modeling, Utah cannot ensure compliance with a nonattainment area
control strategy and cannot determine whether there will be additional
NAAQS exceedances or violations. Thus, R307-410 does not comply with 40
CFR 51.160 or the Clean Air Act and fails to protect human health and
the environment from air pollution.
    Response: We do not agree that disapproval of other aspects of
R307-410 is warranted. EPA has recognized that the CAA provides states
a broad degree of discretion in developing their minor source programs.
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160(c) require that a source provide
sufficient information on the nature and amount of its emissions and
its location, design, construction, and operation to enable the state
to determine whether the source will cause a violation of the control
strategy or interfere with attainment or maintenance of a NAAQS. The
Utah SIP requires a notice of intent from each source above an
exemption threshold describing the source's operation, location,
control technology and emission stream, ``including emission rates,
volume, temperature, air contaminant types, and concentration of air
contaminants.'' R307-401-5(1)--(2). The notice of intent must also
provide additional permitting information complying with offset
requirements for ozone in two counties (R307-401-5(2)(j)(v)) and for PM
10 in two counties (R307-401-5(2)(j)(vi)). This information enables the
state to prevent violations of the control strategy or threats to
attainment or reasonable further progress.
    The commenters express concern with potential emissions increases
related to growth in PM2.5 nonattainment areas. We do not
read the CAA or our regulations as requiring modeling or impact
analysis for every instance of minor source construction or
modification, particularly in nonattainment areas, where it is
generally assumed that any new emissions growth must be addressed to
ensure attainment of the NAAQS. In our view, generally, the
nonattainment area SIP will provide the more appropriate and more
efficient venue to address minor source growth in nonattainment areas.
The nonattainment area SIP will project minor source growth as part of
any approvable attainment demonstration. Essentially, this should
provide a buffer against future emissions growth from minor
construction and modification projects. In the context of Utah's
development of its PM2.5 SIPs, we have suggested that Utah
either adopt an offset program, as it has done for PM10, or
a minor source growth tracking program to help ensure that such growth
does not exceed the attainment demonstration's projections. We
anticipate working with Utah regarding the details of either approach,
or another effective approach.
    We also note that the language of the State's minor NSR regulations
is broad enough to allow the State to require modeling or other form of
impact analysis for applications for minor construction or modification
projects in nonattainment areas, if necessary. R307-401-5(2)(k)
requires the notice of intent to include ``[a]ny other information
necessary to determine if the proposed source or modification will be
in compliance with Title R307.'' We think it is reasonable to allow the
State some flexibility in determining when such impact analysis may be
necessary for minor construction or modification projects in
nonattainment areas.

    Comment: R307-410 Utah Physicians state that R307-410 conflicts
with the Utah SIP, citing the following from Utah's PSD program,
Section VIII:

    ``In addition to the PSD permitting program, Utah also requires
new minor sources and minor modifications to all sources to apply
best available control technology. R307-410 establishes modeling
requirements to ensure that minor sources and modifications will not
cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS.''

    The commenters state that ``this provision is not limited to areas
attaining the NAAQS and instead applies in locations where NAAQS are
being violated, but where emissions may further contribute to that
violation.'' Thus, the commenters assert that R307-410 does not comply
with the Utah SIP.
    Response: We understand Utah SIP Section VIII to apply to Utah's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program, which applies in
attainment areas, not nonattainment areas. Reading the quoted passage
in the comment, we understand the language to be explaining that Utah
requires best available control technology for minor sources as an
additional requirement beyond what is required by the PSD program.
Nothing in the language of the quoted passage indicates to us that Utah
intended the language to modify the requirements of R307-410. We do not
agree that R307-410 conflicts with this SIP language.

III. Changes From our Proposed Action and Basis for our Final Action

    We have made one change from our proposed action. In our proposed
action, we proposed to approve the provisions of R307-410, with the
exception of R307-410-5, which we proposed to disapprove, and R307-410-
6, which we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove. In
this final action, we are changing our proposed partial approval/
partial disapproval of R307-410-6 to a limited approval/limited
disapproval. This does not alter the intent behind our proposal, but
changes the terminology and the approach to those that EPA has
historically used when a provision meets some, but not all, of the
statutory and regulatory requirements, approval of the provision would
strengthen the SIP, and the compliant elements within the provision
cannot be separated from the noncompliant elements.
    We have fully considered the comments we received, and with the
exception of the change noted above, have concluded that no changes
from our proposal are warranted. Our action is based on an evaluation
of Utah's rules against the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(C)
and our minor source NSR regulations at 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.164.
We have also applied CAA section 110(l) in our evaluation of any
changes Utah made in its September 15, 2006 submittal to the prior SIP-
approved version of its minor source NSR program. Section 110(l)
provides that EPA shall not approve a revision to a plan if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in CAA section
171), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. This is
particularly relevant to R307-401-9, which establishes de minimis
thresholds below which sources need not obtain an approval order under
R307-401. The State submitted a 110(l) demonstration for the de minimis
thresholds contained in R307-401-9, and we evaluated that demonstration
as part of our evaluation of Utah's rules.
    We are approving those rules that meet the relevant requirements
and disapproving those rules that do not meet the relevant
requirements, or are not appropriate for inclusion in the SIP (the
rules addressing hazardous air pollutants). Where a rule meets some
requirements but not all, either we are partially approving and
partially disapproving the compliant and noncompliant portions of the
rule or limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving the rule. We
have concluded that R307-401-9's establishment of de minimis thresholds
will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress
toward attainment of any NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement. Thus, our
partial approval of R307-401-9 is consistent with CAA section 110(l).
    For a detailed description of the bases for our actions on the
individual rules, please refer to our notice of proposed rulemaking (78
FR 35181) and our response to comments in section II of this action.

IV. Final Action

    From Utah's September 15, 2006 submittal, we are approving the
following rules or parts of rules: R307-401-1 through 6; R307-401-8;
R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) and the portions of paragraph (c)
that reference paragraph (b)); R307-401-10 through 11; R307-401-13;
R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 through 4. We are disapproving
the following rules or parts of rules: R307-401-7; R307-401-9(b) and
the portions of 9(c) that reference (9)(b); R307-401-12; and R307-410-
5. We are limitedly approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6--
that is, we are approving this provision because it will strengthen the
SIP but are simultaneously disapproving it because it does not fully
comply with applicable requirements.

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this final action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; 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 the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 7, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: December 4, 2013.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart TT--[AMENDED]

0
2. Section 52.2320 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(75) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (75) On September 15, 2006, the Governor submitted revisions to the
Utah State Implementation Plan (SIP) permitting rules. The September
15, 2006 submittal contains new, amended and renumbered rules in Utah
Administrative Code (UAC) Title R-307 that pertain to the issuance of
Utah air quality permits. EPA is approving the following rules or parts
of rules from the September 15, 2006 submittal: R307-401-1 through 6;
R307-401-8; R307-401-9 (except for paragraph (b) and the portions of
paragraph (c) that reference paragraph (b)); R307-401-10 through 11;
R307-401-13; R307-401-17 through 20; and R307-410-1 through 4. EPA is
disapproving the following rules or parts of rules from the September
15, 2006 submittal: R307-401-7; R307-401-9(b) and the portions of 9(c)
that reference (9)(b); R307-401-12; and R307-410-5. EPA is limitedly
approving and limitedly disapproving R307-410-6 from the September 15,
2006 submittal--this means EPA is approving this rule because it will
strengthen the SIP but is simultaneously disapproving it because it
does not fully comply with applicable requirements. EPA is not acting
on the revisions to UAC R307-101-2 because the revisions have been
superseded by later revisions to the rule, which EPA approved at Sec.
52.2320(c)(67) (see 73 FR 51222). EPA is not acting on R307-401-14
through 16 because EPA previously acted on such provisions (notice of
final rulemaking signed October 19, 2012).
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental
Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-401, Permits: New and Modified Sources,
Rule R307-401-1, Purpose; Rule R307-401-2, Definitions; Rule R307-401-
3, Applicability; Rule R307-401-4, General Requirements; Rule R307-401-
5, Notice of Intent; Rule R307-401-6, Review Period; Rule R307-401-8,
Approval Order; R307-401-9, Small Source Exemption except for R307-401-
9(1)(b) and the phrase ``or (b)'' in R307-401-9(1)(c); Rule R307-401-
10, Source Category Exemptions; Rule R307-401-11, Replacement-in-Kind
Equipment; Rule R307-401-13, Plantwide Applicability Limits; Rule R307-
401-17, Temporary Relocation; Rule R307-401-18, Eighteen Month Review;
Rule R307-401-19, Analysis of Alternatives; and Rule R307-401-20,
Relaxation of Limitations. Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code,
Environmental Quality, Air Quality, Rule R307-410, Permits: Emissions
Impact Analysis, Rule R307-410-1, Purpose; Rule R307-410-2,
Definitions; Rule R307-410-3, Use of Dispersion Models; R307-410-4,
Modeling of Criteria Pollutant Impacts in Attainment Areas; and R307-
410-6, Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques. Effective June 16,
2006, as published in the Utah State Bulletin on December 1, 2005,
modified on April 1, 2006, and July 15, 2006. Note: The July 15, 2006
publication contains a typographical error in the title for Rule R307-
410.

[FR Doc. 2014-02080 Filed 2-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


"Lee, Amanda I."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>11/27/2007 07:37 PM	To
	Aaron Levy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
	cc
	Ross Brennan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Balserak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard
Keigwin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diane McConkey/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "MacNeil, John
S."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Belefski, Mary L."
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>	bcc

	Subject
	Comments on the 2008 CUE MeBr FRM

Hi Aaron,

Here are some OMB comments.  I'm still working on other editorial comments.

1.  Given that the Parties have not adopted a concept of SCF, what is the
basis for adopting in this FRM?  What are the consequences of this
adoption?

2.  What is the basis for not adopting a 1-year SCF in response to
comments?  Also, the preamble talks about the proposed SCF being 6 month
cushion and 4 month cushion.  Which one is it?

3.  What isn't OECA involved with the alleged under-reporting of MeBr
use?  Why is EPA/Air requiring more reporting to deal with enforcement
matter?

4.  Even if the newly proposed reporting requirement is considered a sound
policy, the basis for the 90 hour burden is not very convincing.  We would
think the firms would be spending more than 0.5 hour familiarizing
themselves with the new requirements, especially for smaller firms.  Also,
what is the basis for the data compilation burden?  How many transactions
does EPA expect the firms to go through to come up with the list of
distributors?  Is there a form attached to this reporting?

If this FRM is serving the purpose of a 60-day notice, then the agency
will need to do another 30-day notice.

5.  The preamble makes references to technical analysis associated with
SCF.  Other than the TSD, has the agency conducted another analysis?  If
so, please provide.  Also, the preamble discussion on this issue appears
to be largely unresponsive to the comments.

6.  The agency cite some commenters and not others.  Please be consistent.

I have not received comments from USDA, CEQ or USTR yet.

Thanks,

Amanda


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 92 (Thursday, May 12, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27702-27704]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11617]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64428; File No. SR-EDGX-2011-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend EDGX Rules 11.13 and 11.14

May 6, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 4, 2011, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by EDGX. 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 EDGX Rules 11.13 and 11.14 to
include additional securities in the pilot by

which such rule operates. The text of the proposed rule change is
attached as Exhibit 5 and is available on the Exchange's Web site at
http://www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at
the Public Reference Room of the Commission.

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 Exchange 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend EDGX Rules 11.13 and 11.14 to
include additional securities in the pilot by which such rule operates.

Background

    EDGX Rule 11.14 allows the Exchange to provide for uniform market-
wide trading pause standards for individual securities in the S&P 500
Index, securities included in the Russell 1000[supreg] Index (``Russell
1000''), and specified Exchange Traded Products (``ETP'') that
experience rapid price movement (collectively known as ``Circuit
Breaker Securities''). Pursuant to Rule 11.14, the Exchange is allowed
to pause trading in any Circuit Breaker Securities when the primary
listing market for such stock issues a trading pause in any Circuit
Breaker Securities.
    EDGX Rule 11.14 was approved by the Commission on June 10, 2010 on
a pilot basis to end on December 10, 2010.\3\ The pilot was
subsequently extended until April 11, 2011.\4\ It was further extended
then through the earlier of August 11, 2011 or the date on which a
limit up/limit down mechanism to address extraordinary market
volatility, if adopted, applies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62252 (June 10,
2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-01), 75 FR 34186 (June 16, 2010).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63507 (December 9,
2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-22), 75 FR 78787 (December 16, 2010).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64205 (April 6,
2011) (SR-EDGX-2011-10), 76 FR 20417 (April 12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the Exchange noted in its filing to adopt EDGX Rule 11.14,
during the pilot period, the Exchange would continue to assess whether
additional securities need to be added and whether the parameters of
the rule would need to be modified to accommodate trading
characteristics of different securities. The original pilot list of
securities was all securities included in the S&P 500[supreg] Index
(``S&P 500''). As noted in comment letters to the original filing to
adopt EDGX Rule 11.14, concerns were raised that including only
securities in the S&P 500 in the pilot rule was too narrow. In
particular, commenters noted that securities that experienced
volatility on May 6, 2010, including ETFs, should be included in the
pilot.
    In response to these concerns, various exchanges and national
securities associations collectively determined to expand the list of
pilot securities to include securities in the Russell 1000 (``Russell
1000'') and specified ETPs to the pilot beginning in September 2010.\6\
The Exchange believed that adding these securities would address
concerns that the scope of the pilot may be too narrow, while at the
same time recognizing that during the pilot period, the markets will
continue to review whether and when to add additional securities to the
pilot and whether the parameters of the rule should be adjusted for
different securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62884 (September 10,
2010) (SR-EDGX-2010-05), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, during the pilot, the Exchange continued to re-
assess, in consultation with other markets whether: (i) Specific ETPs
should be added or removed from the pilot list; (ii) the parameters for
invoking a trading pause continue to be the appropriate standard; and
(iii) the parameters should be modified.
    The Exchange has continued to assess whether additional securities
need to be added to the pilot and whether the parameters of Rule 11.14
need to be modified to accommodate trading characteristics of different
securities. In consultation with other markets and the staff of the
Commission, the Exchange proposes to include all NMS stocks within the
pilot that are not already included therein. In particular, the
proposed additional stocks are those not currently included in the S&P
500 Index, Russell 1000 Index, or specified ETPs, and therefore are
more likely to be less liquid securities or securities with lower
trading volumes. As a result, the Exchange notes that the primary
listing markets will also apply a wider Trading Pause Trigger Price, as
defined in Rule 11.13(c)(4), to the newly added securities.\7\
Similarly, because leveraged ETPs trade at a ratio against the
associated index, primary listing markets will also apply a broader
Trading Pause Trigger Price for leveraged ETPs. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence in Interpretations and
Policies .05, which defines the scope of the pilot, as the text therein
would no longer be necessary as well as delete the reference to
``Circuit Breaker Securities'' in Rule 11.13(c)(4) and replace it with
``NMS stock.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Other primary listing markets are submitting rule filings
describing these Trading Pause Trigger Prices. The Exchange notes
that the rationale for the differentiation in Trading Pause Trigger
Prices between securities at or above $1 (30% threshold) and
securities below $1 (50% threshold) is that lower-priced securities
may tend to be more volatile, and price movements of lower-priced
stocks equate to a higher percentage move than a similar price
change for a higher-priced stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is not proposing any other changes to the text of
Rules 11.13, 11.14, or the operation of the pilot, and will continue to
assess whether the parameters for invoking a Trading Pause continue to
be appropriate and whether the parameters should be modified.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\8\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
proposed rule change also is designed to support the principles of
Section 11A(a)(1) \9\ of the Act in that it seeks to ensure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements
because it expands the scope of the pilot to cover all NMS stocks that
will promote uniformity across markets concerning decisions to pause
trading in a security when there are significant price movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-EDGX-2011-14 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-EDGX-2011-14. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of EDGX. 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-EDGX-2011-14 and should be
submitted on or before June 2, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11617 Filed 5-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 3, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20-22]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-1017]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lower Mississippi River, Natchez, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Lower Mississippi River. This action is necessary
to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near the
bluffs, Natchez, MS, during a fireworks display on December 31, 2016.
The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between mile markers
363.4 and 364.4 in the Lower Mississippi River located near the bluffs
in Natchez, MS. This rulemaking will prohibit persons and vessels from
being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Memphis (COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:40 p.m. on December 31, 2016 until
10:40 p.m. on January 1, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-1017 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 about this
rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Todd Manow, Waterways
Management, Sector Lower Mississippi River, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone
901-521-4813, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 12, 2016, Natchez Specialties notified the Coast Guard
that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 10 to 10:15 p.m. on
December 31, 2016, to celebrate New Year's Eve. The fireworks are to be
launched from a barge in the Lower Mississippi River at mile marker
363.9 approximately 200 yards northwest of the bluffs in Natchez, MS at
approximate position 31[deg]33.83' N, 091[deg]24.50' W. Hazards from
firework displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous
projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the
Port Memphis (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated
with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern
for anyone within an area on the Lower Mississippi River from mile
marker 363.4 to mile marker 364.4.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because, although the event sponsor
originally submitted notice to the Coast Guard on August 12, 2016,
final details of the event, safety zone requirements, and regulatory
patrol parameters were not finalized until November of 2016. It is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this safety
zone by December 31, 2016.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For these same reasons, the Coast
Guard finds good cause for implementing this rule less than thirty days
before the effective date.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with
this fireworks event would be a safety concern for anyone on the Lower
Mississippi River from mile marker 363.4 to mile marker 364.4. Hazards
from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks,
dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This
rule is needed to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:40 p.m. to 10:40 p.m. on
December 31, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on December 31,
2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:40 p.m. until 10:40 p.m.
on January 1, 2017. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters of
the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 363.4 to mile marker 364.4
in the vicinity of the bluffs in Natchez, MS at approximate position
31[deg]33.83' N, 091[deg]24.50' W. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of waterway users on these navigable waters
before, during, and after the scheduled fireworks display. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory
text appears at the end of this document.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 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 size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be restricted from entering this safety zone which will impact a
small designated area of the Lower Mississippi River for one hour
during the evening of New Year's Eve. This safety zone may be ended
early if conditions allow. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the
zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the
zone.

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 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 will 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.

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 expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in
this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made
a preliminary determination 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 one hour that would prohibit entry into a one mile stretch of
the Lower Mississippi River, one half mile to either side of a
fireworks barge. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant
Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist
and 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 proposed 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 proposes
to amend 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 temporary Sec.  165.T08-1017 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1017   Safety Zone; Mississippi River, Natchez, MS.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Lower Mississippi River from mile marker 363.4 to mile marker 364.4
in the vicinity of the fireworks launch platform at approximate
position 31[deg]33.83' N, 091[deg]24.50' W, 200 yards northwest of the
Natchez bluffs.
    (b) Effective dates and enforcement times. The safety zone will be
in effect from 9:40 p.m. on December 31, 2016 until 10:40 p.m. on
January 1, 2017. The safety zone will be enforced from 9:40 p.m. until
10:40 p.m. on December 31, 2016. In the case of inclement weather on
December 31, 2016, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:40 p.m.
until 10:40 p.m. on January 1, 2017.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Memphis (COTP) or a
designated representative.
    (2) Any vessel desiring to enter this safety zone must first obtain
permission from the COPT or a designated representative, who may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to
mariners of the enforcement periods for the safety zone.

    Dated: December 20, 2016.
T. J. Wendt,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Memphis, Tennessee.
[FR Doc. 2016-31729 Filed 12-30-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P