[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67727-67728]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24415]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96221; File No. SR-CBOE-2022-056]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update
Its Fees Schedule

November 3, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 31, 2022, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``Cboe Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe Options'') proposes
to update its Fees Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective October
31, 2022.
    Currently, pursuant to Footnote 32 of the Fees Schedule,
transaction fees for Customer VIX orders executed during the Global
Trading Hours (``GTH'') session are waived through December 31, 2022.
The waiver was designed to encourage additional customer order flow in
VIX options during GTH. However, the Exchange no longer believes the
current waiver is having the designed effect and therefore the Exchange
proposes to eliminate the current waiver prior to its expiration.
Specifically, the proposed waiver will only apply through October 31,
2022 and effective trade date, November 1, 2022, standard Customer
transaction fees for VIX orders executed during GTH will apply.\3\ The
Exchange proposes to update Footnote 32 of the Fees Schedule
accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Transactions effected on October 31, 2022 from 7:15 p.m. to
11:59 p.m. CT have a trade date of November 1, 2022. See Cboe
Options Rule 1.1 (Definitions) ``Business Day and Trading Day''.
Transaction fees will therefore apply to Customer VIX transactions
effected during the GTH session on calendar day October 31, 2022
from 7:15 p.m. CT to 11:59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to eliminate
the waiver for Customer VIX orders executed during GTH is reasonable as
the waiver was meant to be temporary and the Exchange no longer wishes
to maintain it, nor is it required to maintain such waiver. As noted
above the Exchange no longer believes the waiver is having the desired
effect of encouraging additional Customer order flow in VIX options
during GTH. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory as it applies uniformily to all Customers.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intramarket or intermarket competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition because the proposed change applies
uniformly to all Customers. Customers, like all other market
participants, will

now be subject to standard applicable transaction fees for VIX during
GTH. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule change applies only to a product exclusively listed on
the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange notes it operates in a highly
competitive market. In addition to Cboe Options, TPHs have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow, including 15 other options exchanges, as well as off-exchange
venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Based on
publicly available information, no single options exchange has more
than 18% of the market share of executed volume of options trades.\7\
Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of option order flow. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly
expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention
in determining prices, products, and services in the securities
markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted
the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues
and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system
``has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \8\ The fact that this market is competitive has also long
been recognized by the courts. In NetCoalition v. Securities and
Exchange Commission, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows: ``[n]o one
disputes that competition for order flow is `fierce.' . . . As the SEC
explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market system, buyers and sellers of
securities, and the broker-dealers that act as their order-routing
agents, have a wide range of choices of where to route orders for
execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to take its market share
percentages for granted' because `no exchange possesses a monopoly,
regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of order flow from broker
dealers'. . . .''.\9\ Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its
proposed changes to the incentive programs impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Cboe Global Markets, U.S. Options Market Volume Summary
by Month (October 26, 2022), available at http://markets.cboe.com/us/options/market_share/.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
    \9\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (DC Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-
21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2022-056 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-056. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2022-056 and should be submitted on
or before November 30, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24415 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8143-8146]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03307]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4803; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-034-AD;
Amendment 39-18399; AD 2016-04-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; B-N Group Ltd. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an airworthiness directive (AD) 2014-03-18
for B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-
2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-
21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-
3 airplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another country
to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as damage of the cable sliding end
assembly and installation of the incorrect end fitting on engine
control cable assemblies. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective March 24, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of March 24,
2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of April
1, 2014 (79 FR 10340, February 25, 2014).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4803; or in person at the Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House, Mountbatten Business
Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15 1HY, United Kingdom;
telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371 4001; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2015-4803.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2,
BN-2A, BN-2A-2, BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21,
BN-2A-26, BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK.
III, BN2A MK. III-2, and

BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on October 29, 2015 (80 FR 66482), and proposed to supersede
AD 2014-03-18, Amendment 39-17755 (79 FR 10340; February 25, 2014).
    The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country. The MCAI states that:

    Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited was made aware of two
occurrences where a failure of engine control cable assemblies has
caused engine control difficulties. In both reported cases, the
cable sliding end assemblies were in poor condition and in both
cases, an incorrect end-fitting was installed, which may have
contributed to the failures.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in
reduced engine control, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Britten-Norman
Aircraft issued Service Bulletin (SB) 334 to provide inspection
instructions, and EASA issued AD 2013-0215 to require a one-time
inspection and functional test of the engine control cables and,
depending on findings, replacement of the cables.
    Subsequently, as it was found that BN2 ``Islander'' aeroplanes
were mistakenly omitted from the AD applicability, EASA issued AD
2013-0263, retaining the requirements of EASA AD 2013-0215, which
was superseded, and extending the applicability to BN2 aeroplanes.
    Since EASA AD 2013-0263 was issued, it was found that certain
parts, specific to BN2A ``Trislander'' aeroplanes only, were
inadvertently not included in SB 334 and, as a consequence, not
required by AD 2013-0263 to be inspected.
    Prompted by these findings, Britten-Norman revised SB 334 (now
at issue 2) to include the missing parts.
    For the reason described above, this AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2013-0263, which is superseded, and adds inspection
requirements for the additional parts.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4803-0001.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 66482, October 29, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 66482, October 29, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB
334, Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013; and Britten-Norman Aircraft
Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 2, dated July 17, 2015. The
service information describes procedures for inspection and replacement
if necessary of the engine control cable assemblies. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the  ADDRESSES section of this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 96 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $8,160 or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 10 work-hours and require parts costing $6,000, for a cost
of $6,850 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4803; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-17755 (79 FR
10340; February 25, 2014) and adding the following new AD:

2016-04-05 B-N Group Ltd.: Amendment 39-18399; Docket No. FAA-2015-
4803; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-034-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March 24,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2014-03-18, Amendment 39-17755 (79 FR
10340; February 25, 2014) (``AD 2014-03-18'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to B-N Group Ltd. Models BN-2, BN-2A, BN-2A-2,
BN-2A-3, BN-2A-6, BN-2A-8, BN-2A-9, BN-2A-20, BN-2A-21, BN-2A-26,
BN-2A-27, BN-2B-20, BN-2B-21, BN-2B-26, BN-2B-27, BN2A MK. III, BN2A
MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes, all serial numbers,
certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 76: Engine
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as possible damage
of the cable sliding end assembly and installation of the incorrect
end fitting on engine control cable assemblies. We are issuing this
proposed AD to detect and correct damage of the cable sliding end
assembly (cracking, distortion, corrosion) and incorrect end
fittings on the engine control assemblies, which could lead to
reduced engine control with consequent loss of control, and to
incorporate revised service information with updated information on
applicability and on the identity of parts to be inspected on some
airplanes.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(6) of this AD:
    (1) For all airplanes except the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III,
BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3: Within the next 6 months after
April 1, 2014 (the effective date retained from AD 2014-03-18), do a
one-time inspection of the engine control cable assemblies, part
number (P/N) 137835, P/N 172449-1, P/N 172450, and P/N 172451, and
surrounding areas for damage (cracking, distortion, corrosion); for
the correct cable end-fitting; and to assure the wire locking is
intact following Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin
No. SB 334, Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013; or Britten-Norman
Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 2, dated July
17, 2015.
    (2) For the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and
BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes: Within the next 3 months after March 24,
2016 (the effective date of this AD), do a one-time inspection of
the engine control cable assemblies, P/N 80468 and P/N NB-45-2883,
and surrounding areas for damage (cracking, distortion, corrosion);
for the correct cable end-fitting; and to assure the wire locking is
intact following Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin
No. SB 334, Issue 2, dated July 17, 2015.
    (3) For all airplanes except the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III,
BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3: If no discrepancies are found
during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD,
before further flight, inspect the control linkages for proper
adjustment and make any necessary changes following Britten-Norman
Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 1, dated August
30, 2013; or Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB
334, Issue 2, dated July 17, 2015.
    (4) For the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and
BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes: If no discrepancies are found during the
inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, before further
flight, inspect the control linkages for proper adjustment and make
any necessary changes following Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited
Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 2, dated July 17, 2015.
    (5) For all airplanes except the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III,
BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3: If any discrepancies are found
during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD and/or
the control linkages cannot be properly adjusted as specified in
paragraph (f)(3) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
engine control cable assembly with a serviceable unit following
Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue
1, dated August 30, 2013; or Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service
Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue 2, dated July 17, 2015.
    (6) For the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and
BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes: If any discrepancies are found during the
inspection required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD and/or the
control linkages cannot be properly adjusted as specified in
paragraph (f)(4) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
engine control cable assembly with a serviceable unit following
Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334, Issue
2, dated July 17, 2015.
    (7) For all airplanes except the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III,
BN2A MK. III-2, and BN2A MK. III-3: After April 1, 2014 (the
effective date retained from AD 2014-03-18), do not install on any
airplane engine control cable assemblies, P/N 137835, P/N 172449-1,
P/N 172450, and P/N 172451, unless they are new or have been
inspected as required in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(3) of this AD and
found free of any discrepancies and have proper adjustment.
    (8) For the Trislander Models BN2A MK. III, BN2A MK. III-2, and
BN2A MK. III-3 airplanes: After March 24, 2016 (the effective date
of this AD), do not install on any airplane engine control cable
assemblies P/N 80468 and/or P/N NB-45-2883, unless they are new or
have been inspected as required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(4) of
this AD and found free of any discrepancies and have proper
adjustment.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Raymond Johnston, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2015-0184, dated September 1, 2015; for related information. The
MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-4803-0001.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 24, 2016 (the effective date of this AD).
    (i) Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334,
Issue 2, dated July 17, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 1, 2014 (79 FR 10340; February 25, 2014).
    (i) Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited Service Bulletin No. SB 334,
Issue 1, dated August 30, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For Britten-Norman service information identified in this
AD, contact Britten-Norman Aircraft Limited, Commodore House,
Mountbatten Business Centre, Millbrook Road East, Southampton SO15
1HY, United Kingdom; telephone: +44 20 3371 4000; fax: +44 20 3371
4001; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.britten-norman.com/customer-support/.
    (6) You may view this service information at FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
816-329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4803.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on

the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 10, 2016.
Pat Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-03307 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40151]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EF17-2-000; EF17-3-000; EF17-4-000]

Notice of Filing; Bonneville Power Administration

    Take notice that on August 10, 2017, Bonneville Power
Administration submitted a Second Errata to its July 31, 2017 tariff
filing per: BP-18 Power and Transmission Rates.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 30, 2017.

    Dated: August 16, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17964 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 194 (Wednesday, October 7, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60577-60584]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25164]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0487; FRL-9934-77]

Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Ocean Acidification; TSCA Section 21
Petition; Reasons for Agency Response

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Petition; reasons for Agency response.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the reasons for EPA's denial of a
petition it received under section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA) from the Center for Biological Diversity and Donn J.
Viviani, Ph.D. The petitioners requested EPA to initiate rulemaking
under TSCA to address risks related to carbon dioxide emissions,
particularly those associated with ocean acidification, or, in the
alternative, that EPA initiate rulemaking under TSCA to require testing
to determine toxicity, persistence, and other characteristics of carbon
dioxide emissions that affect human health and the environment. After
careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition for the
reasons discussed in this document.

DATES: EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed
September 25, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Cindy Wheeler, National Program Chemicals Division (7404), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 566-0484; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to sources of carbon dioxide emissions, such as
power plants, cement plants, pulp and paper mills, and various types of
mobile sources. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action.

B. How can I access information about this petition?

    The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2015-0487, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. TSCA Section 21

A. What is a TSCA Section 21 petition?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA
to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule under TSCA section 4, 6, or 8 or an order under TSCA
section 5(e) or 6(b)(2). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the
facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days
of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly
commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the
Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register.
A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to
compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days
of either a denial or the expiration of the 90-day period.

B. What criteria apply to a decision on a TSCA Section 21 petition?

    Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary'' to issue the
rule or order requested (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1)). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21 establishes standards a
court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate rulemaking in
the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner after denial of a TSCA
section 21 petition (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)). Accordingly, EPA has
relied on the standards in TSCA section 21 and in the provisions under
which actions have been requested to evaluate this TSCA section 21
petition.

III. TSCA Sections 6 and 4

    Of particular relevance to this TSCA section 21 petition are the
legal standards regarding TSCA section 6 rules and TSCA section 4
rules.

A. TSCA Section 6 Rules

    To promulgate a rule under TSCA section 6, the EPA Administrator
must find that ``there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of
a chemical substance or mixture . . . presents or will present an
unreasonable risk'' (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)). This finding cannot be made
considering risk alone. Under TSCA section 6, a finding of
``unreasonable risk'' requires the consideration of costs and benefits.
Furthermore, the control measure adopted is to be the ``least
burdensome requirement'' that adequately protects against the
unreasonable risk (15 U.S.C. 2605(a)).
    In addition, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) provides the standard for
judicial review should EPA deny a request for rulemaking under TSCA
section 6(a): ``If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the court by a preponderance of the evidence that . . . there is a
reasonable basis to conclude that the issuance of such a rule . . . is
necessary to protect health or the environment against an unreasonable
risk of injury,'' the court shall order the EPA Administrator to
initiate the requested action (15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(4)(B)).
    Also relevant to the issuance of regulations under TSCA section 6,
TSCA section 9(b) directs EPA to take regulatory action on a chemical
substance or mixture under other statutes administered by the Agency if
the EPA Administrator determines that actions under those statutes
could eliminate or reduce to a sufficient extent a risk posed by the
chemical substance or mixture. If this is the case, the regulation
under TSCA section 6 can be promulgated only if the EPA determines that
it is in the ``public interest'' to protect against that risk under
TSCA

rather than, or in addition to, the alternative authority (15 U.S.C.
2608(b)).

B. TSCA Section 4 Rules

    To promulgate a rule under TSCA section 4, EPA must find that data
and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine or predict the
effects of a chemical substance or mixture on health or the environment
and that testing of the chemical substance is necessary to develop the
missing data (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)). In addition, EPA must find either
that: (1) The chemical substance or mixture may present an unreasonable
risk of injury; or (2) The chemical substance is produced in
substantial quantities and may either result in significant or
substantial human exposure or result in substantial environmental
release (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(1)).
    In the case of a mixture, EPA must also find that ``the effects
which the mixture's manufacture, distribution in commerce, processing,
use, or disposal or any combination of such activities may have on
health or the environment may not be reasonably and more efficiently
determined or predicted by testing the chemical substances which
comprise the mixture'' (15 U.S.C. 2603(a)(2)).

IV. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition

A. What action was requested?

    On June 30, 2015, the Center for Biological Diversity and Donn J.
Viviani, Ph.D., petitioned EPA under TSCA section 21 to determine that
carbon dioxide (CO2) presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment and initiate rulemaking to control
CO2 (Ref. 1). The petitioners point to TSCA section 6(a) for
options that EPA may exercise in order to protect against unreasonable
risk and ask that EPA take into consideration the harm caused by past
CO2 emissions.
    If EPA determines that the available data and information are
insufficient to permit EPA to reasonably determine or predict the
effects of CO2 emissions on human health and the
environment, the petitioners request that EPA initiate rulemaking for
testing under TSCA section 4 to fill the information gaps. The
petitioners suggest that EPA consider requiring the following tests or
studies under TSCA section 4:
    [ssquf] Tests of CO2 emission reduction, capture, and
sequestration strategies.
    [ssquf] Vulnerability assessments for marine and coastal species
and ecosystems.
    [ssquf] Forecasts, using modeling, of species' responses to ocean
acidification.
    [ssquf] Assessments of the economic values of ecosystems at risk
and the costs of reducing CO2 emissions to protect those
ecosystems.
    Petitioner Viviani submitted a supplement supporting all actions
requested in the petition and including additional information and
requests (Ref. 2). The supplement requests further that, with any TSCA
section 6 or TSCA section 4 action, EPA also consider health effects
from climate change and ocean acidification, direct and indirect
economic impacts, insurance impacts, and environmental justice
implications. Petitioner Viviani also suggested that EPA include, in
any TSCA section 6 rule, options to sequester carbon emissions,
including sequestration that relies on alternative energy and/or
produces net carbonates, as well as the use of economic incentives to
encourage sequestration efforts by the private sector. Alternately, the
Viviani supplement specifically asks that EPA use TSCA section 4 to
gather information on sequestration technologies and offers a suggested
cost apportionment method.
    The supplement includes a variety of additional requests and
observations. For example, the supplement urges EPA to consider making
an imminent hazard finding under TSCA section 7 in order to complement
other Agency actions and to inform the public on the risks, causes, and
methods for mitigating ocean acidification resulting from anthropogenic
CO2 emissions. The supplement urges EPA to address the
impacts of ocean acidification on pesticide tolerances by taking into
account the increased fish farming that will be needed as a result of
ocean acidification. Finally, the supplement asks EPA to use other
programs and authorities to address ocean acidification, such as the
Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

B. What support do the petitioners offer?

    The petitioners contend that CO2 emissions cause ocean
acidification, and that ocean acidification is a severe threat to the
marine environment and the health of people who depend on oceans and
coasts. According to the petitioners, about 28% of the CO2
emissions from power generation, cement production, industry, and other
sources are absorbed by the ocean, which causes the seawater to become
more acidic and corrosive to sea life. The petitioners state that,
since the industrial revolution, man-made CO2 emissions have
increased the acidity of the oceans on average by 30%, and that, by the
end of the century, the oceans will become 150-170% more acidic if
anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue unabated. The
petitioners provide numerous examples of the potential adverse effects
of ocean acidification, some of which they say are already apparent,
such as the loss of oyster larvae in the Pacific Northwest, the poor
condition of pteropod (a type of zooplankton) shells along the West
Coast, and the decline in calcification rates at coral reef locations
in the Pacific and the Caribbean. Other adverse impacts to be expected
from ocean acidification, according to the petitioners, are impairment
of sensory abilities and behavior in fish, decreased metabolic rate and
activity levels in squid, increased toxicity of algal blooms, and loss
of species diversity across ocean ecosystems.
    In addition to describing the environmental impacts of ocean
acidification, the petitioners provided some socioeconomic information
to establish that the impacts will be more widespread and may include
our nation's food security. The petitioners cited the United Nations
Convention on Biological Diversity for a 2014 prediction that the
oceans will lose more than $1 trillion in value annually from ocean
acidification by 2100 (Ref. 3). The petitioners also cited a 2010
report from the United Nations Environment Programme that ocean
acidification's impact on marine organisms is a threat to food security
for the billions of people that have a marine-based diet (Ref. 4). The
petitioners contend that the US economy is dependent on the health of
the ocean, citing 2009 information from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that estimated that the ocean economy
contributes over $223 billion annually to the gross domestic product
and provides more than 2.6 million jobs (Ref. 5).

V. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition

A. What is EPA's response?

    After review and consideration of the support provided, EPA denied
the petition. EPA has acknowledged the impacts of CO2 and
other greenhouse gas emissions on ocean acidification and the potential
impacts of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems in its 2009
greenhouse gas endangerment finding (Ref. 6). However, the petitioners
provided neither adequate specifics on the relief sought under TSCA,
nor sufficient information on the costs and benefits associated with a

requested regulatory option to allow EPA to make the unreasonable risk
finding specified in TSCA section 6(a). In addition, actions to address
CO2 emissions under authorities other than TSCA could reduce
the risk posed by CO2 more efficiently and effectively at
this time. Finally, the petitioners do not present EPA with information
sufficient to establish that testing under TSCA section 4 is necessary
to develop data that would allow EPA to determine whether anthropogenic
CO2 emissions present an unreasonable risk of injury under
TSCA. A copy of the Agency's response, which consists of a letter to
the petitioners, is available in the docket for this TSCA section 21
petition.

B. What is EPA's reason for this response?

    1. Background on federal action. Ocean acidification refers to the
decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans caused by the uptake of
CO2 from the atmosphere. Ocean acidification presents a
suite of environmental changes that would likely negatively affect
ocean ecosystems, fisheries, and other marine resources.
    EPA and other parts of the federal government are working
diligently on many fronts to address climate change and related
concerns, including ocean acidification. The Federal Ocean
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2009 created the
Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification (IWG-OA), which is
chaired by NOAA and consists of a dozen federal agencies including EPA.
Over the past several years, the member agencies have conducted and
funded research into the effects of acidification on ocean ecosystems
and the economy. The IWG-OA released its Strategic Plan for Federal
Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification in 2014 (Ref. 7). The
group's Third Report on Federally Funded Ocean Acidification Research
and Monitoring Activities, a report to Congress issued in April 2015
(Ref. 8), highlights the wide variety of research aimed at
understanding the impacts of acidification, including the following
activities undertaken or funded by EPA:
    [ssquf] A study of coastal acidification impacts on shellfish in
Narragansett Bay.
    [ssquf] Studies of plankton community and macro-algal responses to
acidification.
    [ssquf] Support for the development of biophysical models and new
methodologies to determine the economic and intrinsic value of coral
reefs and shellfish.
    [ssquf] Research to assess the economic impacts of ocean
acidification on US mollusk fisheries to support quantification of the
damages resulting from greenhouse gas emissions.
    [ssquf] Support for monitoring acidification in National Estuary
Program study areas.
    [ssquf] Support for the development of computational models that
will predict changes in biogeochemical parameters of coastal waters.
    The current Administration has focused on ocean policy
comprehensively, including ocean acidification. In 2009, President
Obama established an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force charged with
developing recommendations to enhance national stewardship of the
ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. The Task Force received and reviewed
nearly 5,000 written comments from Congress, stakeholders, and the
public before issuing final recommendations. On July 19, 2010,
President Obama signed Executive Order 13547, adopting the final
recommendations of the Task Force and establishing a national policy
for the stewardship of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. This
National Ocean Policy recognizes the importance of marine and lake
ecosystems in providing jobs, food, energy resources, ecological
services, transportation, and recreation and tourism opportunities. In
April of 2013, the final plan for implementing the National Ocean
Policy was issued, after additional opportunities for stakeholders and
the general public to comment (Ref. 9). The implementation plan
describes specific actions Federal agencies will take to address key
ocean challenges, while at the same time giving states and communities
greater input in Federal decisions, streamlining Federal operations,
and promoting economic growth. In relation to ocean acidification, the
implementation plan (and its appendix) focus on information development
and dissemination, as well as coastal resiliency and adaptation.
    President Obama released a Climate Action Plan in 2013 which laid
out a vision for reducing greenhouse gases based on three key pillars,
namely domestic greenhouse gas reductions, preparations for future
impacts, and leading international efforts to address climate change
(Ref. 10). Reductions of CO2 emissions through domestic and
international actions will contribute to the amelioration of ocean
acidification. Domestic actions under the Climate Action Plan that will
lead to CO2 reductions include regulatory activities,
promoting renewable energy, supporting innovation in the energy and
vehicle sectors, and improving efficiency at multiple levels.
CO2 is a globally well-mixed gas, one of the greenhouse
gases that are sufficiently long-lived in the atmosphere such that,
once emitted, concentrations of each gas become well mixed throughout
the entire global atmosphere (Ref. 6). Therefore, global reductions are
also necessary, and the Administration is pursuing multiple avenues to
work with and in other nations to reduce emissions and deforestation
and promote clean energy and energy efficiency.
    Much of the domestic regulatory activity has been under the
authority of the CAA. In 2009, under CAA section 202(a), the
Administrator determined that six well-mixed greenhouse gases
(CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten
the public health and welfare of current and future generations and
that the combined emissions from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which
threatens public health and welfare (Ref. 6). [Note: Although this
finding was supported by a record that included extensive scientific
assessment literature on climate change and its impacts, including
ocean acidification, particularly of the US Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP), the National Research Council (NRC) of the US
National Academies of Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the EPA notes that its actions under the CAA are
governed by different statutory provisions and different standards than
the standard for making a finding of unreasonable risk under TSCA
sections 6(a) or 4. As such, the Agency's determinations on this
petition under TSCA are separate from and would not affect EPA's
determinations under other statutory authorities.]
    Subsequently, EPA promulgated emissions standards for light duty
vehicles for model years 2012-2016 (Ref. 11) and model years 2017-2025
(Ref. 12) controlling emissions of CO2, methane, nitrous
oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons from the light duty fleet. EPA has also
promulgated standards for these same air pollutants for new heavy duty
vehicles and engines for model years 2014-2018 (Ref. 13), and recently
proposed a second phase of standards for these vehicles and engines for
model years 2018-2027 (Ref. 14). Together, the enacted and proposed
standards are expected to save more than six billion barrels of oil
through 2025 and reduce more than 3,100 million metric tons of
CO2 emissions.
    Also with respect to mobile sources, EPA is required to set annual
standards

for the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program for each year that ensure
that transportation fuel sold in the U.S. contains a minimum volume of
renewable fuel. By 2022, the RFS program will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 138 million metric tons, about the annual emissions of 27
million passenger vehicles, replacing about seven percent of expected
annual diesel consumption and decreasing oil imports by $41.5 billion.
    While mobile sources are important contributors to greenhouse gas
pollution, power plants are the largest stationary source of carbon
pollution in the United States and about one third of all greenhouse
gas pollution comes from the generation of electricity by power plants.
On August 3, 2015, EPA issued the Clean Power Plan, which includes
standards for new and existing power plants (Ref. 15). Under the
authority of CAA section 111(b), the Plan sets carbon pollution
standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants. Emission
limits, based on the best adequately demonstrated system of emission
reduction for the type of unit, are set for new, modified, and
reconstructed stationary combustion turbines as well as new, modified,
and reconstructed coal-fired steam generating units. Under the
authority of CAA section 111(d), the Clean Power Plan also establishes
interim and final CO2 emission performance rates for fossil
fuel-fired electric steam generating units and for natural gas-fired
combined cycle generating units. To maximize the range of choices
available to states in implementing the standards and to utilities in
meeting them, the Clean Power Plan also includes interim and final
statewide goals. States will then develop and implement plans that
ensure that their power plants, either individually, together, or in
combination with other measures, achieve the interim CO2
emissions performance rates over the period of 2022 to 2029 and the
final CO2 emission performance rates or goals by 2030. EPA
estimates that by 2030, when the Clean Power Plan is fully effective,
the CO2 emission level from fossil-fuel fired electric power
plants will be lower than the 2005 level by about 32 percent, which is
870 million tons of CO2.
    In addition, since January of 2011, under the CAA, EPA has required
that the construction of large stationary sources of air pollution
(including power plants) incorporate the best technology available for
controlling emissions of greenhouse gases, including CO2.
Under CAA section 165(a), a major emitting facility may not commence
construction without obtaining a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit that limits the emissions of ``each
pollutant subject to regulation'' under the Act to the maximum degree
achievable through the application of the Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) (42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4); 7479(3)). This requirement
became applicable to greenhouse gas emissions when EPA's light-duty
vehicle standards for this pollutant first took effect 2011 (Ref. 16).
In 2010, EPA took several steps to ensure that EPA and state permitting
authorities were able to apply the PSD BACT requirement to greenhouse
gas emissions from the largest stationary sources and to incorporate
those requirements into operating permits for stationary sources under
Title V of the Clean Air Act. EPA first issued a rule that phased-in
the requirements of these CAA permitting programs and initially limited
covered facilities to the nation's largest greenhouse gas emitters:
power plants, refineries, and cement production facilities (Ref. 17).
EPA also issued several rules to ensure that either EPA or a state
permitting authority was in a position to implement these requirements
in every state (Refs. 18-20).
    EPA has developed many programs and projects that partner with
industry and others to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Examples
include ENERGY STAR, the Green Power Partnership, and the Combined Heat
and Power Partnership. Through voluntary energy and climate programs,
EPA's partners reduced over 345 million metric tons of greenhouse gases
in 2010 alone (equivalent to the emissions from 81 million vehicles).
    In addition to taking actions to reduce CO2 emissions,
EPA has been working on ocean acidification issues under the Clean
Water Act (CWA). In 2009, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) containing data and information on the potential effects of
ocean acidification on aquatic life and requested data and information
from the public that could be useful to EPA in deciding whether to
reevaluate and revise the recommended marine pH water quality criterion
under section 304(a)(1) of the CWA (Ref. 21). EPA carefully reviewed
all of the information received during the public comment period as
well as additional information from NOAA. EPA determined that, at the
time, the available data did not indicate a need to revise the national
recommended criteria for marine pH to address the natural variability
in pH across coastal regions.
    In addition, EPA issued a March 2010 request for comment on
consideration of the effects of ocean acidification in the
implementation of the program for listing of impaired waters under CWA
section 303(d) (Ref. 22). Under that section, states, territories, and
authorized tribes develop lists of impaired waters and develop Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the pollutant(s) causing the
impairment. In the notice, EPA asked for comment on what considerations
to take into account when deciding how to address the listing of waters
as threatened or impaired for ocean acidification under the 303(d)
program. In November 2010, EPA distributed a memorandum entitled
``Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean
Acidification'' (Ref. 23). Among other things, the memorandum explained
that states should continue to list waters that do not attain
applicable water quality standards, including marine pH water quality
criteria, on the lists of impaired waters submitted to EPA, and should
continue to solicit existing and readily available information on ocean
acidification using the current section 303(d) listing program
framework. EPA also committed to providing additional guidance to
states, territories, and tribes when future ocean acidification
research efforts provide the basis for improved monitoring and
assessment methods.
    In 2012, EPA took actions to approve the 2010 list of impaired
waters for the State of Washington and to establish the 2010 list of
impaired waters for the State of Oregon. Neither of those lists
included waters impaired due to pollutants associated with or
conditions attributable to ocean acidification, and EPA's actions were
challenged in court. In 2015, the court upheld EPA's determination that
existing and readily available data and information, including
confounding and incomplete data that might otherwise support listing
the States' coastal and estuarine waters as impaired, did not require
listing of such waters as impaired due to ocean acidification (Ref.
24).
    2. Rationale for petition denial. To regulate CO2 to
address ocean acidification under TSCA section 6 in addition to other
authorities, EPA would have to make the unreasonable risk finding
specified in TSCA section 6(a). The TSCA section 21 petition asserts
that ``CO2 pollution is changing ocean chemistry and harming the marine
environment'' and that there will be ``severe and detrimental impacts
on marine ecosystems, the economy, and public health if this pollution
is unabated'' (Ref. 1). However, the petitioners' argument as to the
existence of unreasonable risk under TSCA

section 6 is hindered by a nearly complete lack of detail as to the
TSCA risk management sought. Under TSCA section 21, the public can
petition EPA for the issuance, amendment or repeal of ``a rule'' under
section 6. The petitioners have not identified a particular rule that
they believe EPA should issue. Rather, they have identified a global
environmental concern and asked that EPA, during the 90 days available
to it under section 21, identify a rule that would address the concern
and then assess the costs and benefits of such a rule to determine
whether the identified risk is unreasonable. Section 21 requires
considerably more specificity than petitioners have provided.
    While the petitioners stated an overall goal of mitigating ocean
acidification under TSCA, and suggested a variety of actions that could
be used to achieve this goal, e.g., mandatory emission reductions or
``repurchasing relief using sequestration,'' the petitioners did not
describe, in any reasonable manner, what specific action available
under TSCA section 6 the petitioners seek in order to achieve that
outcome (Ref. 1). For example, although the petitioners state that
``stabilizing atmospheric concentration to prevent further
acidification of the oceans would require about an 80% decrease in all
emissions,'' the petitioners did not specify a regulatory approach for
achieving such a reduction in the United States (EPA clearly could not
require emission reductions abroad under TSCA), or estimate the costs
and benefits of such a regulation (Ref. 1). Among the costs EPA would
want to evaluate would be the impacts of further emission reductions on
energy and transportation reliability and affordability. Similarly,
although the petitioners argue that EPA has the authority to require
the mitigation of past emissions through sequestration, and identify a
variety of methods for sequestering carbon, the petitioners provided no
specifics on how EPA might impose mandatory carbon sequestration
actions on current and past emitters of CO2 that are subject
to TSCA.
    The finding of unreasonable risk under TSCA section 6 encompasses
both the anticipated benefits of regulatory action as well as the
anticipated costs. As noted above, EPA has acknowledged that greenhouse
gas emissions impact ocean acidification and the petitioners have
provided evidence that CO2 contributes to ocean
acidification and therefore poses a risk to the environment within the
meaning of TSCA. The petitioners have also provided information on the
benefits that might be expected from reductions in CO2
emissions and/or mitigation or sequestration of past CO2
emissions globally. However, the petitioners present minimal
information on CO2 emission controls or the costs of
reducing CO2 emissions or sequestering past emissions. The
petitioners conclude that ``many industries could employ existing
technology to achieve meaningful emissions reductions affordably,'' and
cite a couple of EPA documents that review available technologies for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Ref. 1). While these documents are
indeed useful as a survey of the state of the industry on emission
controls and reductions, they do not provide the kind of evidence or
data EPA would need in order to estimate the costs of any rule that EPA
might impose under TSCA section 6 to regulate CO2 emissions.
In addition, the petitioners provide no basis for EPA to estimate the
benefits of any particular rule that EPA might impose. While the
combined effects of global CO2 emissions create significant
environmental and human health concerns, and the elimination or
reduction of those emissions would have substantial benefits, any
particular TSCA rule could address only a portion of those emissions.
The analysis EPA would have to undertake in assessing the
unreasonableness of the identified risks would involve assessing the
costs and benefits of particular rulemaking actions under TSCA, and the
petitioners simply have not provided sufficient information about
either the rule they think EPA should promulgate or the likely costs
and benefits of such a rule to enable EPA to perform such an analysis.
    In addition to a TSCA section 6 rule regulating CO2
emissions, the petitioners suggest that EPA could use its authority
under TSCA section 6(a)(7)(C) to require emitters to take steps to
mitigate or sequester past CO2 emissions. According to the
petitioners, this provision, which gives EPA the authority to require
manufacturers and processors to replace or repurchase chemical
substances or mixtures, also gives EPA the authority to ``remediate
existing harm by requiring that responsible parties mitigate past
CO2 emissions'' (Ref. 1). The petitioners go on to discuss a
wide variety of mitigation and sequestration methods and processes that
EPA should evaluate and potentially impose under this authority,
including land use and agricultural practice changes, programs directed
at consumer choice (like EPA's existing ENERGY STAR program), and
sequestration of CO2 in products, infrastructure and waste
management. The petition supplement provides additional detail on
mitigation and sequestration methods, including bio-char, the use of
more structural timber in buildings, and sequestration in products such
as ``green'' cement and foam insulation (Ref. 2).
    The petitioners' suggestion to consider TSCA section 6(a)(7)(C) is
misplaced. While EPA agrees that this provision gives EPA some
authority to address past harms, it is intended to address chemical
substances and mixtures that move in the stream of commerce, not air
pollution that is a byproduct of industrial and other activity on a
global scale. According to the statute, when the appropriate findings
are made, EPA can require manufacturers or processors to repurchase or
replace chemical substances or mixtures, but the regulated
manufacturers and processors must be permitted to decide whether to
repurchase or replace. In EPA's view, the authority to require
replacement or repurchase of a chemical substance or mixture does not
include the authority to require extraction from the environment of
widely dispersed chemicals. EPA reads this provision as applying when a
distinct person or persons who received the chemical substance or
mixture and from whom the manufacturer or processor can elect to
repurchase or replace can be identified. Applying this provision to
past anthropogenic CO2 emissions does not make sense where
emitted CO2 has mixed throughout the global atmosphere and
there is no way to connect the CO2 with any one entity for
repurchase.
    In addition, TSCA section 9(b) requires EPA's Administrator to
coordinate actions taken under TSCA with actions taken under other laws
administered by EPA. When EPA determines that actions under other
authorities can eliminate or reduce a risk to health or the environment
to a sufficient extent, the Administrator must use the other
authorities unless she determines it is in the public interest to
protect against the risk by action taken under TSCA. While the
petitioners recognize that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are
being regulated under the CAA, they assert that those efforts are
inadequate to protect marine species from climate change and ocean
acidification. However, even if petitioners had requested a TSCA rule
with reasonable specificity, EPA would likely determine that actions
related to ocean acidification taken under other laws administered by
EPA, both those already underway and those planned for

the future, could reduce the risks to a sufficient extent under TSCA
section 9(b). Because CO2 is a global pollutant, domestic
actions alone cannot eliminate the risks, but the Administration has
engaged in a set of coordinated domestic actions and international
negotiations to reduce CO2 emissions in order to reduce the
risks of climate change and ocean acidification. EPA sees no sound
reason to exercise authorities available under TSCA to further address
any such risk or to deviate from EPA's regulatory efforts and programs
already underway.
    The CAA is the comprehensive federal law designed to regulate air
emissions from stationary and mobile sources. As discussed above, EPA
has issued rules under the CAA that address CO2 emissions
from a variety of sources, including power plants and mobile sources.
The Clean Power Plan, for example, represents real action and
leadership on climate change by ensuring meaningful reductions in
carbon pollution from power plants while maintaining energy reliability
and affordability. EPA does not understand why the petitioners seem to
believe that TSCA, which is intended to address toxic substances
generally, would be an appropriate vehicle for addressing emissions of
CO2 when the Agency is already doing so under the federal
statute specifically designed to regulate air emissions. In fact, the
petitioners acknowledge that ``full implementation of our flagship
environmental laws, particularly the Clean Air Act, would provide an
effective and comprehensive greenhouse gas reduction strategy'' (Ref.
1). The petitioners go on to contend that, due to the alleged non-
implementation of these laws, ``existing domestic regulatory mechanisms
must be considered inadequate to protect marine species from climate
change and ocean acidification'' (Ref. 1). The Agency notes that the
CAA and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) provide mechanisms to
ask the Agency to take administrative action, see APA 553(e), 5 U.S.C.
553(e) (providing the right to petition an agency for issuance,
amendment or repeal of a rule), and avenues to seek judicial redress
where the Agency has unreasonably delayed in responding to such
requests. See APA 706(1), 5 U.S.C. 706(1) (establishing claim for
unreasonable delay), and CAA 304(a), 42 U.S.C. 7604(a) (establishing
jurisdiction and notice requirements for unreasonable delay claims).
One of the petitioners, the Center for Biological Diversity, has
regularly participated in development of EPA actions to address the
concerns related to those in the petition.
    In addition to the CAA, the CWA provides some limited authorities
that may be used to reduce the risk associated with ocean
acidification. As noted above, EPA has explained that states should
continue to list waters that do not attain applicable water quality
standards, including marine pH water quality criteria, on the lists of
impaired waters submitted to EPA, and should continue to solicit
existing and readily available data and information regarding
pollutants contributing to and conditions associated with ocean
acidification using the current CWA section 303(d) listing program
framework. Where such data and information supports a finding that a
water body is impaired, the state must establish a total maximum daily
load for relevant pollutants and implement a plan to control the
pollutants from contributing sources. Thus far, neither EPA nor any
states have listed any water bodies as impaired due to pollutants
contributing to nor conditions associated with ocean acidification.
    The petitioners also requested that EPA promulgate a test rule
under TSCA section 4 if EPA was unable to determine, based on available
data, whether anthropogenic CO2 emissions present an
unreasonable risk to human health and the environment within the
meaning of TSCA. EPA notes that it did not construe the petitioners'
request for rulemaking under TSCA section 4 as a strictly contingent
request, and EPA has independently reviewed the TSCA section 21
petition itself to determine whether it sets forth facts sufficient to
justify the initiation of rulemaking to require testing under TSCA
section 4.
    In order to promulgate a test rule under TSCA section 4, EPA must
find that data and experience are insufficient to reasonably determine
or predict the effects of a chemical substance or mixture on health or
the environment and that testing of the substance or mixture with
respect to such effects is necessary to develop the missing data. EPA
must also find that either the chemical substance or mixture may
present an unreasonable risk or that it is produced in substantial
quantities and may either result in significant or substantial human
exposure or result in substantial environmental release. EPA does not
dispute that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are produced in
substantial quantities and result in substantial environmental
releases. However, the petitioners have not made the case that testing
of the chemical substance is necessary to develop missing data. The
fact that atmospheric CO2 affects ocean pH is not in
dispute, and there are numerous studies documenting the effect of ocean
pH on marine organisms (Refs. 21, 22). TSCA section 4 testing authority
primarily speaks to testing of a chemical substance's or mixture's
effects on health and the environment. Much of the testing recommended
by the petitioners does not fit this description and probably could not
be required by EPA under TSCA section 4. For instance, development of
information on the costs and effectiveness of CO2 emission
control technology is not a test of the effect of a substance on health
or the environment.
    Regardless of whether the information described by the petitioners
is information that can be developed using the authority of TSCA
section 4, EPA and other federal agencies are working diligently to
further our collective understanding of the impacts of ocean
acidification. Some research underway matches the petitioners'
recommendations for information to seek under TSCA section 4. For
example, the petitioners suggest conducting vulnerability assessments
for marine and coastal species and ecosystems. In the National Ocean
Policy Implementation Plan, NOAA, the Department of the Interior (DOI),
EPA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Transportation
were tasked with developing best practices for climate change and ocean
acidification vulnerability assessments for Federally-funded and/or
Federally-managed coastal and ocean facilities and infrastructure in
high-hazard areas (Ref. 9). In August of 2014, EPA issued ``Being
Prepared for Climate Change: A Workbook for Developing Risk-Based
Adaptation Plans'' (Ref. 25). This document provides guidance for
conducting risk-based climate change vulnerability assessments and
developing adaptation action plans. In addition, EPA and NOAA have
collaborated on studies of coastal acidification impacts on shellfish
in Narragansett Bay, and EPA is working with the University of Rhode
Island on studies of plankton communities and macroalgal responses to
acidification. The petitioners suggest studying the economic values of
ecosystems that are at risk from ocean acidification. In recent years,
NOAA and EPA have allocated funding for socioeconomic studies related
to ocean acidification. EPA supported the development of biophysical
models and new methodologies to determine the economic and intrinsic
value of coral reefs and shellfish. EPA has also conducted research to
assess the economic impacts of ocean acidification

on US mollusk fisheries for the purpose of including these impacts in
monetary estimates of damages from greenhouse gas emissions. Further,
the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan calls for developing data
on job trends to assess the economic impact of ocean acidification
(Ref. 9). NOAA's Digital Coast Web site provides access to two datasets
containing coastal and ocean job trends (Ref. 8).
    Several other EPA actions were requested in the supplement. The
petitioners suggest action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) would be triggered
if EPA issues a TSCA section 7 ``notice informing the public of the
serious risks to coral reefs associated with ocean acidification, its
causes, and what must be done to mitigate it'' (Ref. 1). As an initial
matter, under TSCA section 21, a petitioner is limited to requesting
relief under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, or 8. In addition, the action
authorized under TSCA section 7 is for EPA to bring a civil action in
district court to seize an imminently hazardous chemical or seek other
relief. Section 7 does not provide authority to make a finding of
imminent hazard independent of a civil action.
    The supplement also outlines potential EPA actions under other
statutes, such as Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), and the CAA (Ref. 2). EPA is asked to reevaluate pesticide
tolerances based on the increased grain consumption that will occur as
fish farming increases due to ocean acidification. To the extent that
fish farming increases grain consumption, EPA will consider that in any
need for changes to pesticide tolerances during the Agency's regular
reassessment of those tolerances.
    The supplement also discusses the possibility of giving formal
notification under section 115(a) of the CAA to the Governors of States
found to emit pollution that endangers public health and welfare in
other countries. The supplement, however, does not seek to demonstrate
that the prerequisites for action under CAA section 115 have been met
at this time or that any specific notifications are warranted.
Moreover, to the extent that the discussion of potentially available
CAA remedies constitutes a request for action, EPA denies the requests
because they are not actions that can be petitioned for under TSCA
section 21. The relief that may be requested under TSCA section 21 is
limited to actions under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6, or 8.

VI. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Center for Biological Diversity and Donn J. Viviani, Ph.D.
Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 21 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2620, Concerning the Regulation of
Carbon Dioxide. June 30, 2015.
2. Donn J. Viviani, Ph.D. Supplement to the Petition for Rulemaking
Pursuant to Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15
U.S.C. 2620, Concerning the Regulation of Carbon Dioxide. June 30,
2015.
3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. An Updated
Synthesis of the Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine
Biodiversity (Eds: S. Hennige, J.M. Roberts & P. Williamson).
Technical Series No. 75. 2014.
4. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). UNEP Emerging
Issues: Environmental Consequences of Ocean Acidification: A Threat
to Food Security. 2010.
5. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Coastal
Services Center, National Summary: The United States Ocean and Great
Lakes Economy. 2011.
6. EPA. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse
Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Federal Register.
74 FR 66496, December 15, 2009 (FRL-9091-8).
7. Interagency Working Group on Ocean Acidification. Strategic Plan
for Federal Research and Monitoring of Ocean Acidification. March
2014.
8. Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability
of the National Science and Technology Council. Third Report on
Federally Funded Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring. April
2015.
9. National Ocean Council. National Ocean Policy Implementation
Plan. April 2013.
10. Executive Office of the President. The President's Climate
Action Plan. June 2013.
11. EPA, Department of Transportation-National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (DOT-NHTSA). Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards;
Final Rule. Federal Register. 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010 (FRL-9134-6).
12. EPA, DOT-NHTSA. 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register. 77 FR 62624, October 15,
2012 (FRL-9706-5).
13. EPA, DOT-NHTSA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles; Final Rule. Federal Register. 76 FR 57106, September 15,
2011 (FRL-9455-1).
14. EPA, DOT-NHTSA. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2;
Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 80 FR 40138, July 13, 2015 (FRL-
9927-21-OAR).
15. EPA. Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; Final Rule.
Signed August 3, 2015 and pending publication in the Federal
Register. Until publication, a pre-publication version of the signed
document is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/cpp-final-rule.pdf.
16. EPA. Reconsideration of Interpretation of Regulation That
Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs;
Final Rule. Federal Register. 75 FR 17004, April 2, 2010 (FRL-9133-
6).
17. EPA. Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. Federal Register. 75 FR
31514, June 3, 2010 (FRL-9152-8).
18. EPA. Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases; Final
Rule. Federal Register. 75 FR 81874, December 29, 2010 (FRL-9244-7).
19. EPA. Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan; Final Rule.
Federal Register. 75 FR 82246, December 30, 2010 (FRL-9245-3).
20. EPA. Determinations Concerning Need for Error Correction,
Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval, and Federal Implementation
Plan Regarding Texas's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Program; Final Rule. Federal Register. 76 FR 25178, May 3, 2011
(FRL-9299-9).
21. EPA. Ocean Acidification and Marine pH Water Quality Criteria;
Notice of Data Availability (NODA). Federal Register. 74 FR 17484,
April 15, 2009 (FRL-8892-5).
22. EPA. Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Notice of Call for Public
Comment on 303(d) Program and Ocean Acidification; Request for
Public Comment. Federal Register. 75 FR 13537, March 22, 2010 (FRL-
9128-8).
23. EPA. Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions Related to Ocean
Acidification. November 15, 2010.
24. Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
25945 (W.D. Wash. March 2, 2015).

25. EPA. Being Prepared for Climate Change: A Workbook for
Developing Risk-Based Adaptation Plans. August 2014.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
James J. Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2015-25164 Filed 10-6-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63852-63853]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER17-349-002.
    Applicants: Transource Maryland, LLC, Transource Pennsylvania, LLC,
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance filing per the
Commission's 11/1/2018 order re: DEA, SA No. 4579 to be effective 11/2/
2016.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1561-002.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 831 offer cap compliance
to set effective date to be effective 12/18/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5038.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-463-002.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Transmission Company of Illinois.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-12-03_ATXI Revisions to
Attachment O & MM for Mark Twain Incentive to be effective 2/14/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2253-001.
    Applicants: Martins Creek, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filings to be effective 12/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5107.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2254-001.
    Applicants: MC Project Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Reactive Service Rate Schedule
Compliance Filings to be effective 12/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5111.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2496-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to the
Commission's 11/29/2018 re: Rate Schedule No. 48 to be effective 12/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5123.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-29-004.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Migrate Great
Falls NITSA to Tariff ID 41 (Part 1 of 2) to be effective 10/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-29-005.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing to Migrate Great
Falls NITSA to Tariff ID 41 (Part 2 of 2) to be effective 11/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-314-001.
    Applicants: Bridgewater Power Company, L.P.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Bridgewater Power
Company L.P. MBR Tariff Application to be effective 1/8/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-381-001.
    Applicants: Power Holding LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Application of Market
Based Rate to be effective 11/21/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-466-000.
    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended and Restated WPC--
Rider F and REC to be effective 1/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5249.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-467-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: NYISO Order 841 compliance
revisions re: Electrice Storage Resources (ESRs) to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5276.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-468-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-12-03 Order No. 841 Compliance
to be effective 12/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5278.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-469-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing re Order No. 841
ESR Markets and Operations Proposal to be effective 12/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5296.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-470-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Compliance filing: Revisions to ISO-NE Tariff in
Compliance with FERC Order No. 841 to be effective 12/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20181203-5299.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-471-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Power and Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WPL Wholesale
Formula Rate Changes to be effective 12/31/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-472-000.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to IPL Wholesale
Formula Rate Application to be effective 12/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-473-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3497 States Edge Wind I
Holdings Facilities Construction Agr to be effective 2/2/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5007.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-474-000.
    Applicants: ORNI 18 LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Market-Based
Rate Tariff (ORNI 18 LLC) to be effective 2/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5032.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-475-000.
    Applicants: USG Oregon LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Market-Based
Rate Tariff (USG Oregon LLC) to be effective 2/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5035.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-476-000.
    Applicants: Mammoth One LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Market-Based
Rate Tariff (Mammoth One LLC) to be effective 2/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-477-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Petition for Tariff Waiver of Southwest Power Pool,
Inc.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5039.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-478-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Reactive
Service Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5040.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-479-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2881R7 City of Chanute, KS
NITSA NOA to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-480-000.
    Applicants: Alabama Power Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Greenway Renewable Power LGIA
Termination Filing to be effective 12/4/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-481-000.
    Applicants: LMBE Project Company LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Notice of Succession and
Revisons to Market-Based Rate Tariff to be effective 12/4/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-482-000.
    Applicants: LMBE Project Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Notice of Succession and
Revisions to Reactive Service Rate Schedule to be effective 12/4/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-483-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Transmital Letter for Notice of
Cancellation of WMPA AD1-071 SA No 5075 to be effective 1/7/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-484-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-12-04_SA 3218 Crescent
Wind--Consumers Energy FCA (J538) to be effective 11/20/2018.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-485-000.
    Applicants: Vermillion Power, L.L.C.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Reactive Power Tariff filing to
be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/4/18.
    Accession Number: 20181204-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/26/18.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF19-499-000.
    Applicants: Berry Petroleum Company, LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of Berry Petroleum Company, LLC [McKittrick].
    Filed Date: 11/30/18.
    Accession Number: 20181130-5427.
    Comments Due: None-Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 4, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26814 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P