[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41914-41923]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15146]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0294; FRL-9948-41-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Cross-State Air Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve portions of the October 26, 2015, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submittal from Alabama concerning the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR). Under CSAPR, large electricity generating units (EGUs) in
Alabama are subject to Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) requiring
the units to participate in CSAPR's federal trading program for annual
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and one of CSAPR's two
federal trading programs for annual emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2). This action would approve into Alabama's SIP the
state's regulations requiring Alabama EGUs to participate in new CSAPR
state trading programs for annual NOX and SO2
emissions integrated with the CSAPR federal trading programs, replacing
the corresponding FIP requirements. These CSAPR state trading programs
are substantively identical to the CSAPR federal trading programs
except with regard to the provisions allocating emission allowances
among Alabama units. EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the
SIP revision concerning these CSAPR state trading programs because
these portions of the SIP revision meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's regulations for approval of a CSAPR full
SIP revision replacing the requirements of a CSAPR FIP. Under the CSAPR
regulations, approval of these portions of the SIP revision would
automatically eliminate Alabama units' obligations to participate in
CSAPR's federal trading programs for annual NOX and
SO2 emissions under the corresponding CSAPR FIPs addressing
interstate transport requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). Approval of these portions of the SIP

revision would satisfy Alabama's good neighbor obligation under the CAA
to prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state. EPA is not proposing to act
at this time on the portion of Alabama's SIP submittal intended to
replace Alabama units' obligations to participate in CSAPR's federal
trading program for ozone-season NOX emissions under a
separate CSAPR FIP.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 28, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-
OAR-2016-0294 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Scofield, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Scofield can be reached by telephone
at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    This section provides additional information by addressing the
following:

I. Summary
II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions
III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions
IV. Alabama's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis
    A. Alabama's SIP Submittal
    B. EPA's Analysis of Alabama's Submittal
    1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring
Allocation
    3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State
Budget
    4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or
Recorded
    6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program
Provisions
    7. Complete, Substantively Identical Trading Program Provisions
    8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions for the Term ``State''
    9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing Units in Indian Country
V. EPA's Proposed Action on Alabama's Submittal
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the October 26, 2015,
SIP submittal from Alabama concerning CSAPR \1\ trading programs for
annual emissions of NOX and SO2. Large EGUs in
Alabama are subject to CSAPR FIPs that require the units to participate
in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the
federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.\2\ CSAPR also
provides a process for the submission and approval of SIP revisions to
replace the requirements of CSAPR FIPs with SIP requirements under
which a state's units participate in CSAPR state trading programs that
are integrated with and, with certain permissible exceptions,
substantively identical to the CSAPR federal trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Federal Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals, 76 FR
48208 (August 8, 2011) (codified as amended at 40 CFR 52.38 and
52.39 and subparts AAAAA through DDDDD of 40 CFR part 97).
    \2\ EPA has proposed to replace the terms ``Transport Rule'' and
``TR'' in the text of the Code of Federal Regulations with the
updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' and ``CSAPR.'' 80
FR 75706 and 75759 (December 3, 2015). Except where otherwise noted,
EPA uses the updated terms here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The portions of the SIP revision proposed for approval would
incorporate into Alabama's SIP state trading program regulations for
annual NOX and SO2 emissions that would replace
EPA's federal trading program regulations for those emissions for
Alabama units for control periods in 2017 and later years. EPA is
proposing to approve these portions of the SIP revision because they
meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for approval of
a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading program with a
state trading program that is integrated with and substantively
identical to the federal trading program except for permissible
differences with respect to emission allowance allocation provisions.
Under the CSAPR regulations, approval of these portions of the SIP
revision would automatically eliminate the obligations of units in
Alabama (but not any units in Indian country within Alabama's borders)
to participate in CSAPR's federal trading programs for annual
NOX and SO2 emissions under the corresponding
CSAPR FIPs. EPA proposes to find that approval of these portions of the
SIP revision would satisfy Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other state.
    The Phase 2 SO2 budget established for Alabama in the
CSAPR rulemaking has been remanded to EPA for reconsideration.\3\ If
EPA finalizes approval of these portions of the SIP revision as
proposed, Alabama will have fulfilled its obligations to provide a SIP
that address the interstate transport provisions of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. Thus, EPA would no longer be under an obligation to (nor would
EPA have the authority to) address those interstate transport
requirements through implementation of a FIP, and approval of these
portions of the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama units' obligations
to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.
Elimination of Alabama units' obligations to participate in the federal
trading programs would include elimination of the federally-established
Phase 2 budgets capping allocations of CSAPR NOX Annual
allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances to Alabama units
under those federal trading programs. As approval of these portions of
the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama's remanded federally-
established Phase 2 SO2 budget and eliminate EPA's authority
to subject units in Alabama to a FIP, it is EPA's opinion that
finalization of approval of this SIP action would address the judicial
remand of Alabama's federally-established Phase 2 SO2
budget.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    \4\ Although the court in EME Homer City Generation remanded
Alabama's Phase 2 SO2 budget because it determined that
the budget was too stringent, nothing in the court's decision
affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a
state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-
established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP
revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3).

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

    Large electricity generating units in Alabama are also subject to
an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to participate in the federal
CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. While Alabama's SIP
submittal also seeks to replace the requirements of the CSAPR FIP
concerning Alabama units' ozone-season NOX emissions, EPA is
not proposing to act on that portion of the SIP submittal at this time.
Approval of this SIP revision concerning other CSAPR trading programs
would have no effect on the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading
Program as applied to Alabama units, and the FIP requiring the units to
participate in that program would remain in place.
    Section II of this document summarizes relevant aspects of the
CSAPR federal trading programs and FIPs as well as the range of
opportunities states have to submit SIP revisions to modify or replace
the FIP requirements while continuing to rely on CSAPR's trading
programs to address the states' obligations to mitigate interstate air
pollution. Section III describes the specific conditions for approval
of such SIP revisions. Section IV contains EPA's analysis of Alabama's
SIP submittal, and Section V sets forth EPA's proposed action on the
submittal. Section VI addresses required statutory and Executive Order
reviews.

II. Background on CSAPR and CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    EPA issued CSAPR in July 2011 to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) concerning interstate transport of air
pollution. As amended, CSAPR requires 28 Eastern states to limit their
statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to
mitigate transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states'
ability to attain or maintain three NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in
terms of maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual
SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season
NOX by each covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state
budgets are implemented in two phases of generally increasing
stringency, with the Phase 1 budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and
2016 and the Phase 2 budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later
years. As a mechanism for achieving compliance with the emissions
limitations, CSAPR established four federal emissions trading programs:
A program for annual NOX emissions, a program for ozone-
season NOX emissions, and two geographically separate
programs for annual SO2 emissions. CSAPR also established up
to three FIPs applicable to the large electricity generating units in
each covered state. Each CSAPR FIP requires a state's units to
participate in one of the four CSAPR trading programs.
    CSAPR includes provisions under which states may submit and EPA
will approve SIP revisions to modify or replace the CSAPR FIP
requirements while allowing states to continue to meet their transport-
related obligations using either CSAPR's federal emissions trading
programs or state emissions trading programs integrated with the
federal programs.\5\ Through such a SIP revision, a state may replace
EPA's default provisions for allocating emission allowances among the
state's units, employing any state-selected methodology to allocate or
auction the allowances, subject to timing conditions and limits on
overall allowance quantities. In the case of CSAPR's federal trading
program for ozone-season NOX emissions (or an integrated
state trading program), a state may also expand trading program
applicability to include certain smaller electricity generating units.
If a state wants to replace CSAPR FIP requirements with SIP
requirements under which the state's units participate in a state
trading program that is integrated with and identical to the federal
trading program even as to the allocation and applicability provisions,
the state may submit a SIP revision for that purpose as well. However,
no emissions budget increases or other substantive changes to the
trading program provisions are allowed. A state whose units are subject
to multiple CSAPR FIPs and federal trading programs may submit SIP
revisions to modify or replace the requirements under either some or
all of those FIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 52.38, 52.39. States also retain the ability to
submit SIP revisions to meet their transport-related obligations
using mechanisms other than the CSAPR federal trading programs or
integrated state trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States can submit two basic forms of CSAPR-related SIP revisions
effective for emissions control periods in 2017 or later years.\6\
Specific conditions for approval of each form of SIP revision are set
forth in the CSAPR regulations, as described in section III below.
Under the first alternative--an ``abbreviated'' SIP revision--a state
may submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces the default
allowance allocation and/or applicability provisions of a CSAPR federal
trading program for the state.\7\ Approval of an abbreviated SIP
revision leaves the corresponding CSAPR FIP and all other provisions of
the relevant federal trading program in place for the state's units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CSAPR also provides for a third, more streamlined form of
SIP revision that is effective only for control periods in 2016 and
is not relevant here. See Sec.  52.38(a)(3), (b)(3); Sec.  52.39(d),
(g).
    \7\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4), (b)(4); Sec.  52.39(e), (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the second alternative--a ``full'' SIP revision--a state may
submit a SIP revision that upon approval replaces a CSAPR federal
trading program for the state with a state trading program integrated
with the federal trading program, so long as the state trading program
is substantively identical to the federal trading program or does not
substantively differ from the federal trading program except as
discussed above with regard to the allowance allocation and/or
applicability provisions.\8\ For purposes of a full SIP revision, a
state may either adopt state rules with complete trading program
language, incorporate the federal trading program language into its
state rules by reference (with appropriate conforming changes), or
employ a combination of these approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5), (b)(5); Sec.  52.39(f), (i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR regulations identify several important consequences and
limitations associated with approval of a full SIP revision. First,
upon EPA's approval of a full SIP revision as correcting the deficiency
in the state's SIP that was the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the
obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading
program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's
jurisdiction without the need for a separate EPA withdrawal action, so
long as EPA's approval of the SIP is full and unconditional.\9\ Second,
approval of a full SIP revision does not terminate the obligation to
participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program for any
units located in any Indian country within the borders of the state,
and if and when a unit is located in Indian country within a state's
borders, EPA may modify the SIP approval to exclude from the SIP, and
include in the surviving CSAPR FIP instead, certain trading program
provisions that apply jointly to units in the state and to units in
Indian country within the state's borders.\10\ Finally, if at the time
a full SIP revision is approved

EPA has already started recording allocations of allowances for a given
control period to a state's units, the federal trading program
provisions authorizing EPA to complete the process of allocating and
recording allowances for that control period to those units will
continue to apply, unless EPA's approval of the SIP revision provides
otherwise.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Sec.  52.38(a)(6), (b)(6); Sec.  52.39(j).
    \10\ Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iv) and (v), (a)(6), (b)(5)(v) and (vi),
(b)(6); Sec.  52.39(f)(4) and (5), (i)(4) and (5), (j).
    \11\ Sec.  52.38(a)(7), (b)(7); Sec.  52.39(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain CSAPR Phase 2 emissions budgets have been remanded to EPA
for reconsideration.\12\ However, the CSAPR trading programs remain in
effect and all CSAPR emissions budgets likewise remain in effect
pending EPA final action to address the remands. The remanded budgets
include the CSAPR Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget applicable to
Alabama units under the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, EPA proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern states'
interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to the 2008
ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the proposed rule would amend the
Phase 2 emissions budget applicable to Alabama units under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program and would make technical
corrections and nomenclature changes that would apply throughout the
CSAPR regulations, including the CSAPR FIPs at 40 CFR part 52 and the
CSAPR federal trading program regulations for annual NOX,
ozone-season NOX, and SO2 emissions at 40 CFR
part 97.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 80 FR 75706, 75710, 75757 (December 3, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Conditions for Approval of CSAPR-Related SIP Revisions

    Each CSAPR-related abbreviated or full SIP revision must meet the
following general submittal conditions:
     Timeliness and completeness of SIP submittal. If a state
wants to replace the default allowance allocation or applicability
provisions of a CSAPR federal trading program, the complete SIP
revision must be submitted to EPA by December 1 of the year before the
deadlines described below for submitting allocation or auction amounts
to EPA for the first control period for which the state wants to
replace the default allocation and/or applicability provisions.\14\
This SIP submission deadline is inoperative in the case of a SIP
revision that seeks only to replace a CSAPR FIP and federal trading
program with a SIP and a substantively identical state trading program
integrated with the federal trading program. The SIP submittal
completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51
also apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(4)(ii), (a)(5)(vi), (b)(4)(iii),
(b)(5)(vii); Sec.  52.39(e)(2), (f)(6), (h)(2), (i)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP seeking to address the allocation or auction of
emission allowances must meet the following further conditions:
     Methodology covering all allowances potentially requiring
allocation. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP
revision, the SIP revision's allowance allocation or auction
methodology must replace both the federal program's default allocations
to existing units \15\ at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.511(a), 97.611(a), or
97.711(a), as applicable, and the federal trading program's provisions
for allocating allowances from the new unit set-aside (NUSA) for the
state at 40 CFR 97.411(b)(1) and 97.412(a), 97.511(b)(1) and 97.512(a),
97.611(b)(1) and 97.612(a), or 97.711(b)(1) and 97.712(a), as
applicable.\16\ In the case of a state with Indian country within its
borders, while the SIP revision may neither alter nor assume the
federal program's provisions for administering the Indian country NUSA
for the state, the SIP revision must include procedures addressing the
disposition of any otherwise unallocated allowances from an Indian
country NUSA that may be made available for allocation by the state
after EPA has carried out the Indian country NUSA allocation
procedures.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In the context of the approval conditions for CSAPR-related
SIP revisions, an ``existing unit'' is a unit for which EPA has
determined default allowance allocations (which could be allocations
of zero allowances) in the rulemakings establishing and amending
CSAPR. A spreadsheet showing EPA's default allocations to existing
units is posted at www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/techinfo.html.
    \16\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(i), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(ii);
Sec.  52.39(e)(1), (f)(1), (h)(1), (i)(1).
    \17\ See Sec. Sec.  97.412(b)(10)(ii), 97.512(b)(10)(ii),
97.612(b)(10)(ii), 97.712(b)(10)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Assurance that total allocations will not exceed the state
budget. For each federal trading program addressed by a SIP revision,
the total amount of allowances auctioned or allocated for each control
period under the SIP revision (prior to the addition by EPA of any
unallocated allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state) may
not exceed the state's emissions budget for the control period less the
sum of the amount of any Indian country NUSA for the state for the
control period and any allowances already allocated to the state's
units for the control period and recorded by EPA.\18\ Under its SIP
revision, a state is free to not allocate allowances to some or all
potentially affected units, to allocate or auction allowances to
entities other than potentially affected units, or to allocate or
auction fewer than the maximum permissible quantity of allowances and
retire the remainder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(A), (a)(5)(i)(A), (b)(4)(ii)(A),
(b)(5)(ii)(A); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(i), (f)(1)(i), (h)(1)(i),
(i)(1)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Timely submission of state-determined allocations to EPA.
The SIP revision must require the state to submit to EPA the amounts of
any allowances allocated or auctioned to each unit for each control
period (other than allowances initially set aside in the state's
allocation or auction process and later allocated or auctioned to such
units from the set-aside amount) by the following deadlines.\19\ Note
that the submission deadlines differ for amounts allocated or auctioned
to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and amounts
allocated or auctioned to other units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(B) and (C), (a)(5)(i)(B) and (C),
(b)(4)(ii)(B) and (C), (b)(5)(ii)(B) and (C); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(ii)
and (iii), (f)(1)(ii) and (iii), (h)(1)(ii) and (iii), (i)(1)(ii)
and (iii).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Deadline for submission
          Units            Year of the control  to EPA of allocations or
                                  period             auction results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing.................  2017 and 2018......  June 1, 2016.
                           2019 and 2020......  June 1, 2017.
                           2021 and 2022......  June 1, 2018.
                           2023 and later       June 1 of the fourth
                            years.               year before the year of
                                                 the control period.
Other....................  All years..........  July 1 of the year of
                                                 the control period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No changes to allocations already submitted to EPA or
recorded. The SIP revision must not provide for any change to the
amounts of allowances allocated or auctioned to any unit after those
amounts are submitted to EPA or

any change to any allowance allocation determined and recorded by EPA
under the federal trading program regulations.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i)(D), (a)(5)(i)(D), (b)(4)(ii)(D),
(b)(5)(ii)(D); Sec.  52.39(e)(1)(iv), (f)(1)(iv), (h)(1)(iv),
(i)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also expands program applicability as described below.\21\ Any new
definitions adopted in the SIP revision (in addition to the federal
trading program's definitions) may apply only for purposes of the SIP
revision's allocation or auction provisions.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(4), (b)(5); Sec.  52.39(e),
(f), (h), (i).
    \22\ Sec.  52.38(a)(4)(i), (a)(5)(ii), (b)(4)(ii), (b)(5)(iii);
Sec.  52.39(e)(1), (f)(2), (h)(1), (i)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions, a CSAPR-related
abbreviated or full SIP revision seeking to expand applicability under
the CSAPR NOx Ozone Season Trading Program (or an integrated state
trading program) must meet the following further conditions:
     Only electricity generating units with nameplate capacity
of at least 15 MWe. The SIP revision may expand applicability only to
additional fossil fuel-fired boilers or combustion turbines serving
generators producing electricity for sale, and only by lowering the
generator nameplate capacity threshold used to determine whether a
particular boiler or combustion turbine serving a particular generator
is a potentially affected unit. The nameplate capacity threshold
adopted in the SIP revision may not be less than 15 MWe.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Sec.  52.38(b)(4)(i), (b)(5)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No other substantive changes to federal trading program
provisions. The SIP revision may not substantively change any other
trading program provisions, except in the case of a SIP revision that
also addresses the allocation or auction of emission allowances as
described above.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Sec.  52.38(b)(4), (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the general submittal conditions and the other
applicable conditions described above, a CSAPR-related full SIP
revision must meet the following further conditions:
     Complete, substantively identical trading program
provisions. The SIP revision must adopt complete state trading program
regulations substantively identical to the complete federal trading
program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435, 97.502 through
97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through 97.735, as applicable,
except as described above in the case of a SIP revision that seeks to
replace the default allowance allocation and/or applicability
provisions.
     Only non-substantive substitutions for the term ``State.''
The SIP revision may substitute the name of the state for the term
``State'' as used in the federal trading program regulations, but only
to the extent that EPA determines that the substitutions do not
substantively change the trading program regulations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Sec. Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iii), (b)(5)(iv); 52.39(f)(3),
(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Exclusion of provisions addressing units in Indian
country. The SIP revision may not include references to or impose
requirements on any unit in any Indian country within the state's
borders and must not include the federal trading program provisions
governing allocation of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the
state.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Sec. Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(iv), (b)(5)(v); 52.39(f)(4), (i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Alabama's SIP Submittal and EPA's Analysis

A. Alabama's SIP Submittal

    In the CSAPR rulemaking, EPA determined that air pollution
transported from Alabama would unlawfully affect other states' ability
to attain or maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\27\ Alabama units meeting the CSAPR applicability criteria are
consequently subject to CSAPR FIPs that require participation in the
CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program, and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2
Trading Program.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 76 FR 48208, 48213 (August 8, 2011).
    \28\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(2), (b)(2); Sec.  52.39(c); Sec.  52.54(a),
(b); Sec.  52.55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2015, Alabama submitted to EPA a SIP revision
including provisions that, if all portions were approved, would
incorporate into Alabama's SIP CSAPR state trading program regulations
that would replace the CSAPR federal trading program regulations with
regard to Alabama units' SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone-season NOX emissions for control periods in 2017 and
later years. The SIP submittal includes three sets of duly adopted
state rules: ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-5-.06 through 335-3-
5-.36, which establish Alabama's ``TR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program''; rules 335-3-8-.07 through 335-3-8-.38, which establish
Alabama's ``TR NOX Annual Trading Program''; and rules 335-
3-8-.39 through 335-3-8-.70, which establish Alabama's ``TR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program''.\29\ In general, each
individual rule in Alabama's three sets of CSAPR state trading program
rules is designed to replace one individual section (or in a few cases
two or three sections) of the corresponding federal trading program
regulations, and each set of rules is designed to collectively replace
all sections of the corresponding federal trading program regulations.
For example, Alabama rule 335-3-5-.06 is designed to replace 40 CFR
97.401 through 97.403, while Alabama rules 335-3-5-.06 through 335-3-
5-.36 are designed to collectively replace all of subpart AAAAA of 40
CFR part 97 (i.e., 40 CFR 97.401 through 97.435).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Consistent with the current CSAPR regulatory text,
Alabama's rules use the terms ``Transport Rule'' and ``TR'' instead
of the updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' and
``CSAPR''. For simplicity, EPA uses the updated terms here except
where otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to form, some of the individual rules for each Alabama
CSAPR state trading program are set forth as full regulatory text--
notably the rules addressing program applicability, emissions budgets
and variability limits, and allowance allocations--but most of the
rules incorporate the corresponding federal trading program section or
sections by reference. Several of the Alabama rules adopt cross-
references to other Alabama rules in place of cross-references to
specific federal trading program sections that would be replaced by
those other Alabama rules.
    With regard to substance, the rules for each Alabama CSAPR state
trading program differ from the corresponding CSAPR federal trading
program regulations in three main ways. First, the applicability
provisions in the Alabama rules require participation in Alabama's
CSAPR state trading programs only for units in Alabama, not for units
in any other state or in Indian country within the borders of Alabama
or any other state. Second, the Alabama rules set forth a methodology
for allocating emission allowances among Alabama units that differs
from the default allowance allocation provisions in the federal trading
program regulations. Finally, the Alabama rules omit a number of
federal trading program provisions not applicable to Alabama's state
trading programs, including provisions setting forth the amounts of
emissions budgets, NUSAs, Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits
for other states; provisions addressing EPA's procedures for allocating
allowances from Indian country NUSAs; and provisions addressing EPA's
recordation of certain allowance allocations.

    The Alabama SIP adopts the Phase 2 annual NOX and
SO2 budgets found at 40 CFR 97.410(a)(1)(iv) and
97.710(a)(1)(iv), respectively. Although the court in EME Homer City
remanded Alabama's Phase 2 SO2 budget because it determined
that EPA required more emissions reductions than necessary to address
the downwind air quality problems to which Alabama contributes, Alabama
is voluntarily adopting a Phase 2 SO2 budget that is
equivalent to the federally-developed budget remanded by the court.
Nothing in the court's decision affects Alabama's authority to seek
incorporation into its SIP of a state-established budget as stringent
as the remanded federally-established budget or limits EPA's authority
to approve such a SIP revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3).
Accordingly, EPA will evaluate the approvability of the Alabama SIP
submission consistent with this budget.
    The SIP revision was submitted to EPA by a letter from the Director
of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management. The letter and
its enclosures describe steps taken by Alabama to provide public notice
prior to adoption of the state rules.
    At this time, EPA is proposing to take action on the portions of
Alabama's SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 Trading Program with regard to Alabama units.
EPA is not proposing to take action at this time on the portion of the
SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program with regard to Alabama units. As noted in
section II above, EPA has proposed to update CSAPR to address Eastern
states' interstate air pollution mitigation obligations with regard to
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The proposal would further reduce the ozone-
season NOX emissions budgets for control periods in 2017 and
later years for a number of states, including Alabama.\30\ Action on
the portion of Alabama's SIP submittal related to ozone-season
NOX emissions would be premature while the proposed update
is pending because there is a foreseeable potential conflict between
the total amount of allowances that would be allocated to Alabama units
under Alabama's state trading program, which reflects Alabama's current
ozone-season NOX budget, and the total amount of allowances
that could permissibly be allocated to the units under a final updated
budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Alabama's current Phase 2 emissions budget under the CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program is 31,499 tons. 40 CFR
97.510(a)(1)(iv). Alabama's proposed updated CSAPR emissions budget
for ozone season NOX emissions is 9,979 tons. 80 FR at
75770.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has previously approved a separate Alabama SIP revision
replacing the default allowance allocation provisions of the CSAPR
NOX Annual Trading Program, the CSAPR NOX Ozone
Season Trading Program, and the CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program for Alabama existing units for the control period in 2016.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 80 FR 52272 (September 22, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. EPA's Analysis of Alabama's Submittal

    As described in section IV.A above, at this time EPA is taking
action on the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal designed to replace
the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal
CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program for Alabama units but not
the portion of the SIP submittal designed to replace the federal CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program. The analysis discussed in
this section addresses only the portions of Alabama's SIP submittal on
which EPA is taking action at this time. For simplicity, throughout
this section EPA refers to the portions of the submittal on which EPA
is proposing to take action as ``the submittal'' or ``the SIP
revision'' without repeating the qualification that at this time EPA is
analyzing and proposing to act on only portions of the SIP submittal.
1. Timeliness and Completeness of SIP Submittal
    Alabama's SIP revision seeks in part to replace the default
allowance allocation provisions in the CSAPR federal trading program
regulations for annual NOX and SO2 emissions as
applied to Alabama units with state regulations establishing a
different state-determined methodology, starting with the control
periods in 2017. Under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B) and 52.39(h)(1)(ii),
the deadline for submission of state-determined allowance allocations
for the 2017 and 2018 control periods is June 1, 2016, which under
Sec. Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(vi) and 52.39(i)(6) makes December 1, 2015, the
deadline for submission to EPA of a complete SIP revision establishing
state-determined allocations for those control periods. Alabama
submitted its SIP revision to EPA on October 26, 2015, and EPA has
determined that the submittal complies with the applicable minimum
completeness criteria in section 2.1 of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51.
Because Alabama's SIP revision was timely submitted and meets the
applicable completeness criteria, it meets the conditions under 40 CFR
52.38(a)(5)(vi) and 52.39(i)(6) for timely submission of a complete SIP
revision.
2. Methodology Covering All Allowances Potentially Requiring Allocation
    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(1) and 335-3-5-.13(1) of the Alabama rules
set forth total amounts of 71,962 CSAPR Annual NOX
allowances and 213,258 CSAPR SO2 Group 2 allowances,
respectively, that would be allocated to Alabama units for each control
period in 2017 and later years according to the allocation procedures
set forth under the remaining paragraphs of Alabama rules 335-3-8-.14
and 335-3-5-.13 (Paragraphs 335-3-8-.13(1) and 335-3-5-.12(1) set forth
the same amounts as the respective state emissions budgets, in
conjunction with the corresponding variability limits). These totals
match the amounts of the respective Phase 2 emissions budgets for
Alabama established under the federal trading program regulations for
annual NOX and SO2 emissions, thereby addressing
the full quantities of allowances that could be allocated to Alabama
units under the default allocation provisions for the federal trading
programs.\32\ As noted earlier, although the Phase 2 SO2
emissions budget was remanded because the court in EME Homer City
determined that the budget was too stringent, nothing in the court's
decision affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP
of a state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-
established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP
revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3). Because the current CSAPR
federal trading program regulations for annual NOX and
SO2 emissions do not provide for portions of Alabama's
overall emissions budgets to be allocated pursuant to the Indian
country NUSA allocation procedures, there is no current need for the
Alabama rules establishing CSAPR state trading programs for annual
NOX and SO2 emissions to include provisions
addressing the disposition of otherwise unallocated allowances from an
Indian country NUSA that might be made available by EPA for state
allocation.\33\ The allocation provisions in the Alabama rules
therefore enable Alabama's SIP revision to meet the

condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i) and 52.39(i)(1) that the state's
allocation or auction methodology must cover all allowances potentially
requiring allocation by the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 40 CFR 97.410(a)(1)(iv); Sec.  97.710(a)(1)(iv).
    \33\ Since promulgating the current CSAPR regulations, EPA has
learned of Indian country within Alabama's borders. If any units
were to locate in that area of Indian country in the future, EPA
would determine at that time what actions, if any, should be taken
to make CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 allowances available for allocation to those
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Assurance That Total Allocations Will Not Exceed the State Budget
    As discussed in section IV.B.2 above, paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(1) and
335-3-5-.13(1) of the Alabama rules set forth the total amounts of
CSAPR Annual NOX allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances to be allocated to Alabama units for each control period
under the state trading programs; these total amounts equal the amounts
of the respective annual NOX and SO2 emissions
budgets established for Alabama units under the CSAPR federal trading
program regulations; and under the current CSAPR federal trading
program regulations for annual NOX and SO2 there
is no possibility of additional allowances from an Indian country NUSA
being allocated to Alabama units. EPA has not yet allocated or recorded
CSAPR allowances for the control periods in 2017 or later years. The
allocation methodology in Alabama's SIP revision therefore meets the
condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(A) and 52.39(i)(1)(i) that, for
each trading program, the total amount of allowances allocated under
the SIP revision (before the addition of any otherwise unallocated
allowances from an Indian country NUSA) may not exceed the state's
budget for the control period less the amount of the Indian country
NUSA for the state and any allowances already allocated and recorded by
EPA.
4. Timely Submission of State-Determined Allocations to EPA
    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(2)(a) through (d) and 335-3-5-.13(2)(a)
through (d) of the Alabama rules provide for all allowance allocations
to Alabama units established under the Alabama rules to be submitted to
EPA by the following deadlines: allocations for the control periods in
2017 and 2018, by June 1, 2016; allocations for the control periods in
2019 and 2020, by June 1, 2017; allocations for the control periods in
2021 and 2022, by June 1, 2018; and allocations for later control
periods, by June 1 of the fourth or fifth year before the year of the
control period. These submission deadlines match or precede the
submission deadlines discussed in section III above (specifically, the
deadlines under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B) and 52.39(i)(1)(ii) for
allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR purposes and
the submission deadlines under Sec. Sec.  52.38(a)(5)(i)(C) and
52.39(i)(1)(iii) for allocations to other units). Alabama's SIP
revision therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(B)
and (C) and 52.39(i)(1)(ii) and (iii) requiring that the SIP revision
provide for submission of state-determined allowance allocations to EPA
by the deadlines specified in those provisions.
5. No Changes to Allocations Already Submitted to EPA or Recorded
    The Alabama rules include no provisions allowing alteration of
allocations after the allocation amounts have been provided to EPA and
no provisions allowing alteration of any allocations made and recorded
by EPA under the federal trading program regulations, thereby meeting
the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(i)(D) and 52.39(i)(1)(iv).
6. No Other Substantive Changes to Federal Trading Program Provisions
    With the exception of the provisions addressing allowance
allocations discussed above, the Alabama state trading program rules
generally incorporate sections of the corresponding federal trading
program regulations by reference or set forth full text that is very
similar to the text in the corresponding federal trading program
regulations.\34\ Some of the differences between the Alabama rules and
the corresponding federal trading program regulations are clearly non-
substantive. For example, in instances where an Alabama rule contains
full text substituting for the text of a section of the federal trading
program regulations, the remaining Alabama rules adopt cross-references
to the full-text Alabama rule in place of cross-references to the
section of the federal trading program regulations that would be
replaced by the full-text Alabama rule. The Alabama rules also contain
definitions for certain terms used in the state trading programs'
allocation provisions that are not used in the federal trading program
regulations, as expressly permitted under the CSAPR regulations.\35\
Most of the remaining differences between the Alabama rules and the
corresponding sections of the federal trading program regulations
consist of non-substantive renumbering of the provisions.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EPA has proposed to make certain technical corrections to
the CSAPR FIP and federal trading program regulations in order to
more accurately reflect EPA's intent as described in the CSAPR
rulemaking and has also proposed to replace ``TR'' with ``CSAPR''
throughout the regulations (for example, ``TR NOX Annual
unit'' would become ``CSAPR NOX Annual unit''). See 80 FR
75706, 75758. Because the proposed technical corrections merely
clarify and do not change EPA's interpretations, where the proposed
corrections would apply to a provision incorporated by reference in
the Alabama rules, EPA would interpret the Alabama rules as
reflecting the corrections. Further, EPA anticipates that if the
proposed nomenclature updates are finalized, the final CSAPR federal
regulations would explicitly provide that terms that include
``CSAPR'' encompass otherwise identical terms in approved SIP
revisions that include ``TR''.
    \35\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(ii); Sec.  52.39(i)(2).
    \36\ Instances where Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules
omit provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program regulations are
discussed in sections IV.B.7 and 9 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the clearly non-substantive or expressly authorized
differences summarized above, a few of Alabama's rules contain other
differences from the federal trading program regulations. In each case,
EPA has determined that the changes do not represent substantive
changes to the federal trading program regulations. First, paragraphs
335-3-8-.08(1)(c), 335-3-8-.09(1)(a), 335-3-8-.34(2)(a), 335-3-
5-.07(1)(c), 335-3-5-.08(1)(a), and 335-3-5-.32(2)(a) of the Alabama
rules require Alabama units to submit certain petitions, statements,
and notices not only to EPA but also to the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management. Because the additional notification
requirements do not alter the respective authorities or
responsibilities of EPA and the Department, EPA considers the
requirements to be non-substantive changes.
    Second, paragraphs 335-3-8-.20(2)(a), 335-3-8-.23(2)(a), 335-3-
5-.18(2)(a), and 335-3-5-.21(2)(a) of the Alabama rules provide that,
like EPA, the Department will not adjudicate certain private legal
disputes. Because the Department is not required to adjudicate such
disputes under the federal trading program regulations in any event,
these additions to the text of the state trading program rules merely
clarify that the Department is not undertaking a new adjudication
responsibility under the state trading programs. EPA therefore
considers these additions to be non-substantive changes.
    Third, paragraph 335-3-8-.07(2)(b)8. of the Alabama CSAPR state
trading program rules for annual NOX emissions substitutes a
reference to Alabama rule 335-3-16-.01 (an Alabama air permit program
rule) for a reference to 40 CFR 70.2 (the definitions section of the
federal regulations governing state operating permit programs under CAA
title V) in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program definition
of ``permitting authority.'' \37\ Although substitutions to definitions
in the CSAPR federal trading program regulations generally are not
permissible

in a CSAPR-related SIP revision, in this case the substitution has no
substantive effect, for two reasons. First, the state trading program
rule, like the CSAPR federal trading program definition, includes a
reference to the definition of ``permitting authority'' in 40 CFR 71.2
(the definitions section of the federal operating permit program under
CAA title V) which encompasses the definition of ``permitting
authority'' in Sec.  70.2, so all the intended possible meanings of
``permitting authority'' are captured in the state trading program
rules despite the loss of the reference to 40 CFR 70.2. Second, Alabama
rule 335-3-16-.01 contains no definition of ``permitting authority,''
so the substitution does not introduce any new, unintended meanings of
``permitting authority'' in the state trading program rules. EPA
therefore considers the substitution to be a non-substantive change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Alabama's CSAPR state trading program rules for
SO2 emissions do not contain a comparable substitution
provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, paragraphs 335-3-8-.10(2)(a) and (b) and 335-3-5-.09(2)(a)
and (b) of the Alabama rules substitute references to Alabama rule
335.3.16-.13(3) (the Alabama rule addressing minor permit modification
procedures) for references to 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) (the minor permit
modification procedures section of the federal regulations governing
state operating permit programs under CAA title V) in the federal
trading program regulations regarding title V permit requirements. As
applied to Alabama units only, the substituted Alabama rule provisions
are substantively identical to the provisions in 40 CFR 70.7(e)(2) that
would be replaced. Because in the context of Alabama's CSAPR state
trading programs these particular provisions need to address only
Alabama units and not units from other states participating in the
CSAPR trading programs, EPA determines that these substitutions have no
substantive effect.
    For the reasons discussed above, EPA has determined that none of
the textual additions or substitutions made to the CSAPR federal
trading program regulations in Alabama's corresponding CSAPR state
trading program rules are substantive, and that Alabama's SIP revision
therefore meets the conditions under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5) and 52.39(i) of
making no substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading
program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance
allocations.
7. Complete, Substantively Identical Trading Program Provisions
    With the following exceptions, the Alabama rules comprising
Alabama's CSAPR state trading program for annual NOX
emissions either incorporate by reference or adopt full-text
replacements for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 97.402 through 97.435,
and the Alabama rules comprising Alabama's CSAPR state trading program
for SO2 emissions either incorporate by reference or adopt
full-text replacements for all of the provisions of 40 CFR 97.702
through 97.735. The first exception is that Alabama rules 335-3-8-.13
and 335-3-5-.12, which generally address the amounts of emissions
budgets and related quantities, omit the provisions of 40 CFR 97.410
and 97.710 setting forth the amounts of the Phase 1 emissions budgets,
NUSAs, and variability limits for Alabama; the amounts of the Phase 2
NUSAs for Alabama; and the amounts of all emissions budgets, NUSAs,
Indian country NUSAs, and variability limits for other states. Omission
of the Alabama Phase 1 emissions budget and NUSA amounts is appropriate
because Alabama's state trading programs do not apply to emissions
occurring in Phase 1 of CSAPR. Omission of the default Alabama NUSA
amounts under the federal trading program regulations is appropriate
because the allocation procedures under Alabama's state trading
programs establish NUSA amounts differently. Omission of the budget,
NUSA, Indian country NUSA, and variability limit provisions for other
states from state trading programs in which only Alabama units
participate does not undermine the completeness of the state trading
programs.
    The second exception is that Alabama rules 335-3-8-.14 and 335-3-
5-.13, generally addressing allowance allocations, omit 40 CFR
97.411(b)(2) and 97.412(b) and 97.711(b)(2) and 97.712(b), concerning
EPA's administration of Indian country NUSAs. Omission of these
provisions from Alabama's state trading program rules is required, as
discussed in section IV.B.9 below.
    The third exception is that Alabama rules 335-3-8-.24 and 335-3-
5-.22, which generally incorporate by reference the federal trading
programs' recordation schedule provisions, exclude from incorporation
by reference 40 CFR 97.421(a), (b), (h), and (i) and 97.721(a), (b),
(h), and (i), respectively, concerning EPA's schedule for recording
certain allowance allocations. The federal trading program provisions
at Sec. Sec.  97.421(a) and (b) and 97.721(a) and (b), which address
recordation of allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR
purposes of allowances for the compliance periods in 2015 and 2016, do
not need to be included in Alabama's state trading program rules
because those allocations have already been recorded. The federal
trading program provisions at Sec. Sec.  97.421(h) and 97.721(h), which
address recordation of allocations from Indian country NUSAs, are
appropriately excluded from state trading programs because a state may
not administer an Indian country NUSA. The federal trading program
provisions at Sec. Sec.  97.421(i) and 97.721(i), which address
recordation of second-round NUSA allocations, are not needed in
Alabama's state trading program rules because Alabama would provide EPA
the amounts of its NUSA allocations on the earlier schedule applicable
to allocations to units considered existing units for CSAPR
purposes.\38\ Omission of these provisions from Alabama's state trading
programs therefore does not undermine the completeness of the state
trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For the same reason, Alabama's state rules could
permissibly omit 40 CFR 97.421(g) and 97.721(g), which address
recordation of first-round NUSA allocations. Note that
notwithstanding the lack of provisions addressing recordation of
NUSA allocations in Alabama's state trading program rules, EPA would
retain authority to complete the recordation of 2016 NUSA
allocations to Alabama units because EPA has already started
recording allocations to Alabama units of allowances for the
compliance periods in 2016. See 40 CFR 52.38(a)(7); Sec.  52.39(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because none of the omissions undermines the completeness of the
Alabama's state trading programs and because, as discussed in section
IV.B.6 above, EPA has determined that Alabama's SIP revision makes no
other substantive changes to the provisions of the federal trading
program regulations beyond the provisions addressing allowance
allocations, Alabama's SIP revision meets the condition under 40 CFR
52.38(a)(5) and 52.39(i) that the SIP revision must adopt complete
state trading program regulations substantively identical to the
complete federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.402 through
97.435, 97.502 through 97.535, 97.602 through 97.635, or 97.702 through
97.735, as applicable, except for permissible differences in allowance
allocation and/or applicability provisions.
8. Only Non-Substantive Substitutions for the Term ``State''
    Paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(a)1. and 335-3-5-.07(1)(a)1. of the
Alabama rules substitute the term ``the State of Alabama'', and
paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(b) and 335-3-5-.07(1)(b) of the Alabama rules
similarly substitute the term ``the State'' (meaning Alabama), for the
phrase ``a State (or Indian country within the borders of such State)''
in the corresponding federal trading program regulations at 40 CFR
97.410(a)(1) and 97.710(a)(1) and at Sec. Sec.  97.410(b) and

97.710(b), respectively. These provisions of the Alabama rules define
the units that are required to participate in Alabama's CSAPR state
trading programs. The substitutions appropriately exclude units located
in other states and units located in Indian country with the borders of
Alabama or any other state, thereby limiting the applicability of
Alabama's state trading programs to units that are subject to Alabama's
jurisdiction. These substitutions do not substantively change the
provisions of CSAPR's federal trading program regulations. The
remaining Alabama rules do not substitute for the term ``State'' as
used in the federal trading program regulations. Alabama's SIP revision
therefore meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iii) and
52.39(i)(3) that the SIP revision may substitute the name of the state
for the term ``State'' as used in the federal trading program
regulations, but only to the extent that EPA determines that the
substitutions do not substantively change the provisions of the federal
trading program regulations.
9. Exclusion of Provisions Addressing Units in Indian Country
    The Alabama rules do not set forth any full text provisions
directly addressing units in Indian country within the state's borders.
As discussed in section IV.B.8 above, paragraphs 335-3-8-.08(1)(a)1.
and 335-3-5-.07(1)(a)1. of the Alabama rules define the units required
to participate in Alabama's state trading programs in a manner that
appropriately excludes units located in Indian country within Alabama's
borders from coverage under Alabama's CSAPR state trading programs.
Although various other provisions of the CSAPR federal trading program
regulations incorporated by reference into the Alabama rules without
modification refer to units in Indian country, the clear exclusion of
any such units from coverage under the state trading program
applicability provisions--in other words, the fact that such units are
not ``TR NOX Annual units'' or ``TR SO2 Group 2
units'' for purposes of the state trading programs--renders the
remaining provisions of Alabama's state trading program rules
inoperative as to the units. EPA therefore interprets the Alabama rules
as not imposing any requirements on units located in Indian country
within the state's borders.
    As discussed in section IV.B.7 above, Alabama rules 335-3-8-.14 and
335-3-5-.13, which address allowance allocations under the state
trading programs, contain no provisions replacing 40 CFR 97.411(b)(2),
97.412(b), 97.711(b)(2), or 97.712(b), the portions of the
corresponding federal trading program regulations governing allocations
of allowances from Indian country NUSAs Thus, the Alabama rules do not
include any express state rule provisions concerning administration of
Indian country NUSAs. Further, Alabama rules 335-3-8-.24 and 335-3-
5-.22, which generally incorporate by reference the federal trading
programs' recordation schedule provisions, exclude 40 CFR 97.421(h) and
97.721(h), respectively, provisions addressing recordation of Indian
country NUSA allocations. EPA notes that paragraphs 335-3-8-.14(3)(i)
and 335-3-5-.13(3)(i) of the Alabama rules, which incorporate by
reference the federal trading program regulations generally addressing
corrections of incorrect allocations, fail to exclude 40 CFR
97.411(c)(5)(iii) and 97.711(c)(5)(iii), addressing corrections of
certain incorrect Indian country NUSA allocations. However, the
regulations governing approval of CSAPR-related SIP revisions do not
expressly require exclusion of these federal trading program provisions
(unlike the Indian country NUSA allocation provisions) and, further,
the provisions are inoperative as to Alabama because the CSAPR federal
trading program regulations do not currently establish Indian country
NUSAs for Alabama.\39\ EPA therefore interprets the Alabama state rules
as sufficiently excluding provisions addressing administration of the
Indian country NUSA provisions under the federal trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Since promulgating the current CSAPR regulations, EPA has
learned of Indian country within Alabama's borders. If any units
were to locate in that area of Indian country in the future, EPA
would determine at that time what actions, if any, should be taken
to make CSAPR NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR
SO2 Group 2 allowances available for allocation to those
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, EPA has determined that Alabama's SIP revision
adequately meets the condition under 40 CFR 52.38(a)(5)(iv) and
52.39(i)(4) of not including references to or imposing requirements on
any unit in any Indian country within the state's borders and not
including the federal trading program provisions governing allocation
of allowances from any Indian country NUSA for the state.

V. EPA's Proposed Action on Alabama's Submittal

    EPA is proposing to approve the portions of Alabama's October 26,
2015, SIP submittal concerning the establishment for Alabama units of
CSAPR state trading programs for annual NOX and
SO2 emissions for compliance periods in 2017 and later
years. The proposed revision would adopt into the SIP the state trading
program rules codified in ADEM Administrative Code rules 335-3-8-.07
through 335-3-8-.38 (establishing Alabama's ``TR NOX Annual
Trading Program'') and 335-3-5-.06 through 335-3-5-.36 (establishing
Alabama's ``TR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program'').\40\ These
Alabama CSAPR state trading programs would be integrated with the
federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal
CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program, respectively, and would
be substantively identical to the federal trading programs except with
regard to the allowance allocation provisions. Following approval of
these portions of the proposed SIP revision, Alabama units therefore
would generally be required to meet requirements under Alabama's CSAPR
state trading programs equivalent to the requirements the units
otherwise would have been required to meet under the corresponding
CSAPR federal trading programs, but allocations to Alabama units of
CSAPR NOX Annual allowances for compliance periods in 2017
and later years would be determined according to the SIP's allocation
provisions at Alabama rule 335-3-8-.14 instead of EPA's default
allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.411(a), 97.411(b)(1), and 97.412(a),
and allocations to Alabama units of CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances would be determined according to the SIP's allocation
provisions at Alabama rule 335-3-5-.13 instead of EPA's default
allocation provisions at 40 CFR 97.711(a), 97.711(b)(1), and 97.712(a).
EPA is proposing to approve these portions of the SIP revision because
they meet the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for
approval of a CSAPR full SIP revision replacing a federal trading
program with a state trading program that is integrated with and
substantively identical to the federal trading program except for
permissible differences with respect to emission allowance allocation
provisions, as discussed in section IV above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Consistent with the current CSAPR regulatory text, the
Alabama rules use the terms ``Transport Rule'' and ``TR'' instead of
the updated terms ``Cross-State Air Pollution Rule'' and ``CSAPR''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA promulgated the FIPs requiring Alabama units to participate in
the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading Program and the federal
CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program in order to address
Alabama's obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with

respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the absence of
SIP provisions addressing those requirements. Approval of the portions
of Alabama's SIP submittal adopting CSAPR state trading program rules
for annual NOX and SO2 substantively identical to
the corresponding CSAPR federal trading program regulations (or
differing only with respect to the allowance allocation methodology)
would correct the same deficiency in the SIP that otherwise would be
corrected by those CSAPR FIPs. Under the CSAPR regulations, upon EPA's
full and unconditional approval of a SIP revision as correcting the
SIP's deficiency that is the basis for a particular CSAPR FIP, the
obligation to participate in the corresponding CSAPR federal trading
program is automatically eliminated for units subject to the state's
jurisdiction (but not for any units located in any Indian country
within the state's borders).\41\ The proposed approval of the portions
of Alabama's SIP submittal establishing CSAPR state trading program
rules for annual NOX and SO2 emissions therefore
would result in automatic termination of the obligations of Alabama
units to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual Trading
Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading Program.
Approval of these portions of the SIP revision would therefore satisfy
Alabama's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to
prohibit emissions which will significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 40 CFR 52.38(a)(6); Sec.  52.39(j); see also Sec.
52.54(a)(1); Sec.  52.55(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in section II above, the Phase 2 SO2 budget
established for Alabama in the CSAPR rulemaking has been remanded to
EPA for reconsideration.\42\ If EPA finalizes approval of these
portions of the SIP revision as proposed, Alabama will have fulfilled
its obligations to provide a SIP that address the interstate transport
provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA would no longer be under an
obligation to (nor would EPA have the authority to) address those
transport requirements through implementation of a FIP, and approval of
these portions of the SIP revision would eliminate Alabama units'
obligations to participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Annual
Trading Program and the federal CSAPR SO2 Group 2 Trading
Program. Elimination of Alabama units' obligations to participate in
the federal trading programs would include elimination of the
federally-established Phase 2 budgets capping allocations of CSAPR
NOX Annual allowances and CSAPR SO2 Group 2
allowances to Alabama units under those federal trading programs. As
approval of these portions of the SIP revision would eliminate
Alabama's remanded federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget
and eliminate EPA's authority to subject units in Alabama to a FIP, it
is EPA's opinion that finalization of approval of this SIP action would
address the judicial remand of Alabama's federally-established Phase 2
SO2 budget.\43\ Large electricity generating units in
Alabama are subject to an additional CSAPR FIP requiring them to
participate in the federal CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Trading
Program. While Alabama's SIP submittal also seeks to replace the CSAPR
FIP requirements addressing Alabama units' ozone-season NOX
emissions, EPA is not proposing to act on that portion of the SIP
submittal at this time. Approval of this SIP revision concerning other
CSAPR trading programs would have no effect on the CSAPR NOX
Ozone Season Trading Program as applied to Alabama units, and the FIP
requiring the units to participate in that program would remain in
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 138
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
    \43\ Although the court in EME Homer City Generation remanded
Alabama's Phase 2 SO2 budget because it determined that
the budget was too stringent, nothing in the court's decision
affects Alabama's authority to seek incorporation into its SIP of a
state-established budget as stringent as the remanded federally-
established budget or limits EPA's authority to approve such a SIP
revision. See 42 U.S.C. 7416, 7410(k)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submittal that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: June 10, 2016.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2016-15146 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52594-52596]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20569]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70227; File No. SR-FINRA-2013-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Form U4 Regarding the Reporting of
Unsatisfied Judgments and Liens

August 19, 2013.
    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 August 13, 2013, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under
the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this
filing by the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend the Uniform Application for Securities
Industry Registration or Transfer (``Form U4'') with respect to the
reporting of unsatisfied judgments and liens.
    The proposed rule change does not make any changes to the text of
FINRA rules.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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, Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Form U4 is the Uniform Application for Securities Industry
Registration or Transfer. Representatives of broker-dealers, investment
advisers, or issuers of securities must use the Form U4 to become
registered in the appropriate jurisdictions and with the appropriate
self-regulatory organizations (``SROs''). The Form U4 elicits
administrative information (e.g., residential history, office of
employment, outside business activities) and disclosure information
(e.g., criminal charges and convictions, customer complaints,
bankruptcies) about a representative. Firms and individuals have a
continuing obligation to ensure that a Form U4 is timely updated when
an event or proceeding occurs that renders a prior response on the form
inaccurate or incomplete.
    Section 14 of the Form U4 sets forth a series of questions
regarding the existence of disclosure events that must be answered in
the affirmative or negative. Additional details must be provided on the
appropriate Disclosure Reporting Page (``DRP'') for any affirmative
answer to those questions. One of the disclosure events that must be
reported on Form U4 involves unsatisfied judgments and liens. To report
that a registered representative has become subject to an unsatisfied
judgment or lien, a firm must respond affirmatively to Question 14M on
Form U4 and then complete the corresponding Judgment/Lien DRP to
provide details about the unsatisfied judgment or lien. An unsatisfied
judgment or lien must be reported no later than 30 days after a
registered representative learns of the facts or circumstances giving
rise to the event (i.e., the filing of the judgment or lien).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See FINRA By-Laws, Article V, Section 2(c), which states
that every application for registration filed with the Corporation
shall be kept current at all times by supplementary amendments via
electronic process or such other process as the Corporation may
prescribe to the original application. Such amendment to the
application shall be filed with the Corporation not later than 30
days after learning of the facts or circumstances giving rise to the
amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with fee changes implemented last year, it came to
FINRA's attention that the Form U4 does not elicit a piece of
information regarding an unsatisfied judgment or lien that is essential
in enabling the CRD system to identify whether such a matter has been
reported late. Specifically, the Judgment/Lien DRP elicits information
only about the date a judgment or lien was filed; \5\ it does not
elicit information about the date that the registered representative
learned of the judgment or lien. In addition, the CRD system is
programmed to determine whether a matter has been reported late based
on a comparison of the date the judgment or lien was filed and the date
it was reported. As result, the CRD system may assess an erroneous late
disclosure fee because it is unable to take into account the date the
registered representative learned of the judgment or lien.\6\ In such
circumstances, the late disclosure fee may be unwarranted or the amount
of the fee may be incorrect because the CRD system assessed the late
disclosure fee based on the date the judgment or lien was filed rather
than when the registered representative learned of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 4 of the Form U4 Judgment/Lien DRP.
    \6\ FINRA will assess a late disclosure fee when a firm fails to
report a disclosure event in a timely manner. The amount of the fee
is based upon the number of days the disclosure is late. See Section
4(h) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To help limit the instances of erroneous late disclosure fees being
assessed by the CRD system, in August 2012, FINRA implemented new
procedures for the reporting of unsatisfied judgments and liens.\7\ The
new procedures instruct firms to provide the date the registered
representative learned of the judgment or lien, if such date is
different from the date the judgment or lien was filed, in a free-text
section at the end of the DRP.\8\ If a firm reports a date in this
section of the DRP, FINRA staff reviews the date provided to determine
whether

a late disclosure fee should be assessed and, if so, the amount of the
fee.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Information Notice, August 17, 2012.
    \8\ See Section 8 of the Judgment/Lien DRP.
    \9\ In conjunction with the implementation of the new procedures
for the reporting of judgments and liens, the CRD system was
modified to no longer automatically assess a late fee upon the
reporting of these matters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide additional clarity with respect to the reporting of
events involving unsatisfied judgments and liens, the proposed rule
change would amend Section 4 of the Judgment/Lien DRP to add a question
regarding the date that the registered representative learned of the
judgment or lien. The current question regarding the date the judgment
or lien was filed will remain in Section 4 of the DRP.\10\ By amending
the Judgment/Lien DRP in this manner, all member firms will be aware of
the need to report both the date the judgment or lien was filed with a
court and the date the registered representative learned of the matter.
In addition, the proposed rule change would allow FINRA to once again
automate the process for the calculation and assessment of the late
disclosure fee with respect to the reporting of unsatisfied judgments
and liens.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA, however, is proposing to clarify that this question
pertains to the date that the judgment or lien was filed with a
court.
    \11\ As noted above, in August 2012, FINRA suspended the
automated process for calculating and assessing the late disclosure
fee with respect to the reporting of unsatisfied judgments and
liens, and instituted a temporary manual process. The proposed
change would allow FINRA to reinstitute the automated process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the
proposed rule change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later
than 90 days following Commission notice of the filing of the proposed
rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA is proposing that the
implementation date of the proposed rule change be the date of the
software release to the CRD system in the fourth quarter of 2013.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\12\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that, by adding a question to the
Judgment/Lien DRP to elicit the date that a registered representative
learned of a judgment or lien, the proposed rule change will clarify
and facilitate industry reporting requirements and thereby help to
ensure that member firms report information about unsatisfied judgments
and liens accurately and completely. FINRA also believes that the
proposed rule change will limit the instances of the assessment of an
erroneous late disclosure fee by allowing FINRA to automate the process
by which such a fee is calculated and assessed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change to the
Form U4 Judgment/Lien DRP will clarify and facilitate the accurate and
complete reporting of information about unsatisfied judgments and liens
by member firms. Furthermore, by specifically eliciting information
about the date a registered representative learned of an unsatisfied
judgment or lien, the proposed rule change will significantly limit, if
not eliminate, the instances in which a member firm is assessed an
erroneous late disclosure fee in connection with the reporting of such
an event. This, in turn, will reduce the need for firms to contact
FINRA for a refund of a late disclosure fee.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Information about the late disclosure fee, including the
procedure for requesting a refund, is available on FINRA's Web site
at http://www.finra.org/industry/compliance/registration/crd/usersupport/p005225.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2013-034 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.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2013-034. 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 FINRA. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-

2013-034 and should be submitted on or before September 13, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-20569 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 105)]
[Notices]
[Page 31129-31131]
[DOCID:fr30my08-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-D-0366] (formerly Docket No. 2007D-0234)

Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff;
Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive for the
Topical Approximation of Skin; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of the guidance entitled ``Class II Special Controls
Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive for the Topical Approximation of
Skin.'' This guidance document describes a means by which tissue
adhesive for the topical approximation of skin may comply with the
requirement of special controls for class II devices. Elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a final rule to
reclassify these device types from class III into class II (special
controls).

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on this guidance at any
time. General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any
time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
document entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue
Adhesive for the Topical Approximation of Skin'' to the Division of
Small Manufacturers, International, and Consumer Assistance (HFZ-220),
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug
Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,

Rockville, MD 20850. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request, or fax your request to 240-276-
3151. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on
electronic access to the guidance.
    Submit written comments concerning this guidance to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments
to http://www.regulations.gov. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George J. Mattamal, Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (HFZ-410), Food and Drug Administration, 9200
Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Tissue adhesive for the topical approximation of skin devices are
intended for topical closure of surgical incisions, including
laparoscopic incisions, and simple traumatic lacerations that have
easily approximated skin edges. Tissue adhesives for topical
approximation of skin may be used in conjunction with, but not in place
of, deep dermal stitches. This device is currently in class III and
subject to premarket approval requirements (section 515 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (act); 21 U.S.C. 360e).
    On August 25, 2006, at a public meeting of FDA's General and
Plastic Surgery Devices Panel (the Panel), the Panel unanimously
recommended that the tissue adhesive for the topical approximation of
skin device be reclassified from class III into class II and
recommended that a guidance document, which the Panel thought should
include several voluntary consensus standards, be the special control
for the device type. FDA considered the Panel's recommendations and, in
the Federal Register of July 3, 2007 (72 FR 36398), published a
proposed rule to reclassify the tissue adhesive for the topical
approximation of skin device into class II. In addition, FDA issued a
draft class II special controls guidance document entitled ``Class II
Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive for the Topical
Approximation of Skin'' to support the proposed reclassification.
    Following publication of the draft guidance, four comments on the
guidance were submitted to the FDA. We considered the suggestions and
made appropriate revisions, including consideration of the comments on
testing the applicator. FDA is now identifying the guidance document
entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Tissue Adhesive
for the Topical Approximation of Skin'' as the guidance document that
will serve as the special control for this device type.
    The guidance document provides a means by which the tissue adhesive
for the topical approximation of skin device may comply with the
requirement of special controls for this class II device. Following the
effective date of the final reclassification rule, any firm submitting
a premarket notification (510(k)) for a tissue adhesive for the topical
approximation of skin device will need to address the issues covered in
the special controls guidance document. However, the firm need only
show that its device meets the recommendations of the guidance document
or in some other way provides equivalent assurances of safety and
effectiveness. This guidance supersedes the guidance entitled
``Cyanoacrylate Tissue Adhesive for the Topical Approximation of Skin -
Premarket Approval Applications (PMAs),'' dated February 13, 2004.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on ``Class II Special Controls Guidance
Document: Tissue Adhesive for the Topical Approximation of Skin.'' It
does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not
operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used
if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute
and regulations.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by
using the Internet. To receive ``Class II Special Controls Guidance
Document: Tissue Adhesive for the Topical Approximation of Skin,'' you
may either send an e-mail request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an
electronic copy of the document or send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER>
to receive a hard copy. Please use the document number 1630 to identify
the guidance you are requesting.
    CDRH maintains an entry on the Internet for easy access to
information including text, graphics, and files that may be downloaded
to a personal computer with Internet access. Updated on a regular
basis, the CDRH home page includes device safety alerts, Federal
Register reprints, information on premarket submissions (including
lists of approved applications and manufacturers' addresses), small
manufacturer's assistance, information on video conferencing and
electronic submissions, Mammography Matters, and other device-oriented
information. The CDRH Web site may be accessed at http://www.fda.gov/
cdrh. A search capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available
at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. Guidance documents are also
available at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 801 have been approved under OMB control
number 0910-0485; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; and the
collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0073.

V. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) written or electronic comments regarding this document.
Submit a single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any
mailed comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy.
Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the
Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Division of Dockets
Management Web site transitioned to the Federal Dockets Management
System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-wide, electronic docket management
system. Electronic comments or submissions will be accepted by FDA only
through FDMS at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: May 21, 2008.
Daniel G. Schultz,
Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
[FR Doc. E8-12072 Filed 5-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


APPENDIX G

Reasonably Available Control Measures

Bureau of Air Quality

Department of Environmental Protection

This page blank for copying purposes.