[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 134 (Thursday, July 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 41193]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3346-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Ohio; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Ohio (FEMA-3346-EM), dated June 30, 2012,
and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated June 30, 2012, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the State of
Ohio resulting from severe storms beginning on June 29, 2012, and
continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant an
emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (``the Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency exists in the
State of Ohio.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program. This assistance excludes regular time costs for
subgrantees' regular employees.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, W.
Michael Moore, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Ohio have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    All 88 counties in the State of Ohio for emergency protective
measures (Category B), limited to direct federal assistance, under
the Public Assistance program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-16980 Filed 7-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8455-8460]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03395]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060, FRL-9942-52-Region 2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Puerto Rico;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2008 Ozone, 1997 and 2006
Fine Particulate Matter and 2008 Lead NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve most elements of the five State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submittals from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to demonstrate
that the State meets the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) and 2008 lead National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The plan is required to address basic
program elements, including, but not limited to, regulatory structure,
monitoring, modeling, legal authority, and adequate resources necessary
to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These elements
are referred to as infrastructure requirements. In this rulemaking
action, EPA is proposing to approve, in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA, the infrastructure SIP submissions with the
exception of some portions of the submittals addressing Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2016-0060 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raymond K. Forde, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York,
New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section is arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of State Submittals
III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs
IV. Summary of EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval and
Disapproval
V. Proposed Action
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
promulgated a revised national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or
standards) for ozone (62 FR 38856) and a new NAAQS for fine particle
matter (PM2.5) (62 FR 38652). The revised ozone NAAQS was
based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period
replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the
NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. The
new PM2.5 NAAQS established a health-based annual standard
of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour
standard of 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations.
    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), effective December 18, 2006, EPA
revised the 24-hour average PM2.5

primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 [micro]g/m\3\ to 35 [micro]g/m\3\.
As required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, the 110(a)(2) submittals
were due within three years after promulgation of the revised standard.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436) EPA strengthened its NAAQS for
ground-level ozone, revising the 8-hour primary ozone standard to 0.075
ppm. EPA also strengthened the secondary 8-hour ozone standard to the
level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard.
    On November 12, 2008 (73 FR 66964), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS
for lead. The Agency revised the level of the primary lead standard
from 1.5 [micro]g/m\3\ to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ . The EPA also revised the
secondary NAAQS to 0.15 [micro]g/m\3\ and made it identical to the
revised primary standard.
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2)
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or
within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2)
requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The content of such SIP submission may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned earlier, these
requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

II. Summary of State Submittals

    The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) submitted five revisions to
its SIP to satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for
the five different NAAQS. On November 29, 2006, PREQB submitted SIP
revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 1997 ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 22, 2013 and April 16, 2015,
PREQB submitted SIP revisions addressing the infrastructure
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, and
supplemented the November 2006 submittal for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. On January 31, 2013, PREQB submitted SIP
revisions addressing the infrastructure requirements for the 2008 lead
NAAQS. On February 1, 2016, PREQB submitted additional provisions for
inclusion into the SIP which address infrastructure SIP requirements
for 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead
NAAQS. Each of the infrastructure SIP revisions addressed the following
infrastructure elements for the applicable NAAQS which EPA is proposing
to approve pursuant to section 110(a)(2) of the CAA. Specifically
sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), portions of (C), portions of (D), (E), (F),
(G), (H), portions of (J), (K), (L), and (M) for the 1997 and 2008
ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS.

III. EPA's Approach To Review Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is acting upon Puerto Rico's SIP submissions that address the
infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA for
the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead
NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 302(d) of the CAA includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in
the definition of the term ``State.'' Section 110(a)(2) includes a list
of specific elements that ``each such plan'' submission must address.
    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term ``infrastructure
SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this
particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to
satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as ``nonattainment
SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to address the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.
    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\1\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the
CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP

requirements.\2\ Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of
such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates
the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B)
allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such
designations to be promulgated.\3\ This ambiguity illustrates that
rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section
110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)
versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \3\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all
of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and
whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action.
Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a plan'' to meet
these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make
multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect
to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\4\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
    \5\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different
NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2)
would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for
each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example,
the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its
infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B)
could be very different for different pollutants, because the content
and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this
element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a
minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D to meet the ``applicable requirements'' of section
110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission
limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air
agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that
attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to
meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not
apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and
thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example
illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of
section 110(a)(2) but not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\7\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\8\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure

SIP submissions.\9\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \8\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \9\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's SIP
appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that
there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately
address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the
structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program
(e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-
member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are
addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of Section 128 are
necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including
Green House Gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions that are not required under
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an
option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of
complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5
NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure
SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the
state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether
the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the
context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA
does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in
the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and
EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR
Reform). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\10\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring
review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against
all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other

avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in
existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take
appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity
of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to
issue a ``SIP call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP
is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions,
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it
had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62
FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009)
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Summary of EPA's Rationale for Proposing Approval and Disapproval

    In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing approval of Puerto
Rico's infrastructure SIP submittals for the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS as addressing
requirements in section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (with the exception of
program requirements for PSD), (D)(i) (with the exception of program
requirements related to PSD), (D)(ii) (with the exception of program
requirements related to PSD), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the
exception of program requirements related to PSD), (K), (L), and (M) of
the CAA.
    On February 1, 2016, PREQB submitted rules from the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico Statutes, ``Environmental Public Policy Act,'' Act No. 416
(2004, as amended), Section 7.A, and Section 7.D and ``Puerto Rico
Government Ethics Law,'' Act. No 1 (approved January 3, 2012), Section
5, for incorporation into the SIP to address the requirements of
Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 of the CAA. Among other things, these
collective provisions prohibit members of the Commonwealth's
Environmental Quality Board from having any ``conflicts of interests
that might interfere with the discharge their offices,'' and require
disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. EPA is proposing to
approve these submissions, which are intended to apply to any person
subject to CAA 128, for inclusion into the SIP as meeting CAA
obligations under section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, and 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
    EPA Region 2 is the permitting authority for Puerto Rico's PSD
Major Source Program. The sources affected by PSD Program are subject
to the Federal Implementation Plan PSD control requirements in 40 CFR
Sections 52.21. Puerto Rico does not have its own state adopted PSD
program, its infrastructure submission is not approvable with respect
to this element. Therefore, EPA is disapproving the following
infrastructure SIP elements as they relate to the PSD program for lack
of a State adopted PSD rule to satisfy section 110(a)(2) for the 1997
and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 lead NAAQS:
sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i) prong 3, (D)(ii) and (J). It should be
noted that a FIP clock will not be started because a PSD FIP is
currently in place, and sanctions will not be triggered.
    Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements
of part C of the CAA related to visibility. Puerto Rico's submittal
does not address the visibility portion of J, including submission of
any visibility measures under this sub-element. As indicated in EPA's
September 2013 Infrastructure Guidance, although states are subject to
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C, the
visibility and regional haze program requirements under part C do not
change due to promulgation of, or revision to, a NAAQS. The SIP is not
required to be revised with respect to visibility protection since
there are no new visibility obligations. Accordingly, air agencies do
not need to address the visibility sub-element of section 110(a)(2)(J)
in infrastructure SIP submissions. Since Puerto Rico did not make a
submission addressing the visibility portion of (J), action on this
sub-element is not applicable.
    EPA is not acting on section 110(a)(2)(I), plan revisions for
nonattainment areas. Specific SIP submissions for nonattainment areas,
as required under CAA title I part D, are subject to a different
submission schedule \14\ than those for section 110 infrastructure
elements and are reviewed and acted upon under a separate process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ These elements are typically referred to as nonattainment
SIP or attainment plan elements and are due by the dates prescribed
under subparts 2 through 5 of part D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A detailed analysis of EPA's review and rationale for proposing to
approve and disapprove elements of the infrastructure SIP submittals as
addressing these CAA requirements may be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action which is available
on line at www.regulations.gov, Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0060.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document. These comments will be considered before taking final action.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Puerto Rico's infrastructure submittals
dated November 29, 2006, January 22 and 31, 2013, April 16, 2005 and
February 1, 2016, for the 1997 and 2008 ozone, 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 and 2008 lead NAAQS, respectively, as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA, including specifically
section 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) (with the exception of program
requirements for PSD), (D)(i) (with the exception of program
requirements related to PSD), (D)(ii) (with the exception of program
requirements related to PSD), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (with the
exception of program requirements related to PSD), (K), (L), and (M).
    EPA is proposing to incorporate the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's
``Environmental Public Policy Act'', Act No. 416 (2004, as amended),
Section 7.A, and Section 7.D and the ``Puerto Rico Government Ethics
Law,'' Act. No. 1 (approved January 3, 2012), Section 5,

for inclusion into Puerto Rico's SIP to address the requirements of
Sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 of the CAA. EPA is further proposing
to approve these submissions, which are intended to apply to any person
subject to CAA 128, for inclusion into the SIP as meeting CAA
obligations section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead, and 2008 ozone
NAAQS.
    EPA is disapproving the following infrastructure SIP requirements
as they relate to the PSD program for lack of a State adopted PSD rule
to satisfy section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 and 2008 ozone NAAQS, 1997
and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 lead NAAQS: sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i) prong 3, (D)(ii) and (J). It should be noted that
a FIP clock will not be started because a PSD FIP is currently in
place, and sanctions will not be triggered. Since Puerto Rico is not
required to address the visibility portion of section 110(a)(2)(J) in
the context of an infrastructure SIP, and therefore did not make a
submission, action on this sub-element is not applicable.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Puerto Rico's ``Environmental Public Policy Act,'' Act No.
416 (2004, as amended), Section 7.A, and Section 7.D and ``Puerto Rico
Government Ethics Law,'' Act. No. 1 (approved January 3, 2012), Section
5. These provisions are intended to apply to any person subject to CAA
Section 128. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations (see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to Puerto
Rico's section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for the 1997 and
2008 ozone NAAQS, 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and 2008 lead
NAAQS does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved
to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 9, 2016.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2016-03395 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 64 (Friday, April 3, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18232-18233]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07596]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879; FRL-9924-13]

Exposure Modeling Public Meeting; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: An Exposure Modeling Public Meeting (EMPM) will be held on
April

28, 2015. This Notice announces the location and time for the meeting
and provides a tentative list of topics to be covered in the meeting.
The EMPM provides a public forum for EPA and its stakeholders to
discuss current issues related to modeling pesticide fate, transport,
and exposure for pesticide risk assessments in a regulatory context.

DATES: The meeting will be held on April 28, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 4:15
p.m. Requests to participate in the meeting must be received on or
before April 13, 2015. To request accommodation of a disability, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), One Potomac Yard (South
Building), First Floor Conference Center (S-1200), 2777 S. Crystal
Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meridith Fry or R. David Jones,
Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone numbers:<PHONE_NUMBER> and (703)
305-6725; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are required
to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
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. The following list of North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive,
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting (NAICS code
11).
     Utilities (NAICS code 22).
     Professional, Scientific and Technical (NAICS code 54).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0879, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    On a biannual interval, an EMPM is held for presentation and
discussion of current issues related to modeling pesticide fate,
transport, and exposure for risk assessment in a regulatory context.
Meeting dates and abstract requests are announced through the
``empmlist'' forum on the LYRIS list server at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    You may submit a request to participate in this meeting to the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Do not submit any
information in your request that is considered CBI. Requests to
participate in the meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0879, must be received on or before April 13, 2015.

IV. Tentative Topics for the Meeting

     PRZM volatilization algorithm for soil pesticide
applications.
     Updated AGRO model for aquatic and benthic pesticide
concentrations.
     Weather data in aquatic exposure modeling.
     Nonlinear sorption, nonequilibrium, and sorbed-phase
degradation with PRZM5.
     Drift reduction technologies in the United States.
     Aquatic exposure modeling for threatened and endangered
species.
     Probabilistic aquatic exposure modeling for endangered
species assessments.
     Probabilistic approach for spatial extent of use and co-
occurrence with listed species.
     Degradation kinetics standard operating procedure update.
     Statistical methods for selecting kinetics models.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 19, 2015.
Donald J. Brady,
Director, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-07596 Filed 4-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52671-52672]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM):

PJM Planning Committee
August 11, 2016, 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. (EST)
PJM Transmission Expansion Advisory Committee
August 11, 2016, 11:00 a.m.--3:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meetings will be held at: PJM Conference and
Training Center, PJM Interconnection, 2750 Monroe Boulevard, Audubon,
PA 19403.
    The above-referenced meetings are open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at www.pjm.com.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER16-453, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Northeast
Transmission Development, LLC
Docket No. ER16-736, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-972, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER14-1485, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket Nos. ER13-1944, et al., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., et al.
Docket No. ER15-1344, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-1387, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Potomac Electric
Power Company
Docket No. ER15-2562, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER15-2563, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-18, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v.
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-41, Essential Power Rock Springs, LLC, et. al. v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.

Docket No. ER15-2114, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and Transource West
Virginia, LLC
Docket No. EL15-79, TransSource, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL15-95, Delaware Public Service Commission, et. al., v. PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., et. al.
Docket No. EL15-67, Linden VFT, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. EL05-121, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER13-198, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1335, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1232, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1499, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
Docket No. ER16-1807, First Energy Solutions Corp.
Docket No. EL16-96, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    For more information, contact the following:

Jonathan Fernandez, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Alina Halay, Office of Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 3, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-18829 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79650-79651]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32090]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST--2014-0011]

National Freight Advisory Committee: Notice of Public Meeting

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announces a
webinar meeting of its National Freight Advisory Committee (NFAC) to
develop comments on the draft National Freight Strategic Plan (Plan.)
This meeting is open to the public and there will be an opportunity for
public comment.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, January 7, 2016, from 3:00
p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place online, as a webinar.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Drake, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Transportation Policy at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit
the NFAC Web site at www.dot.gov/nfac.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The NFAC was established to provide advice and
recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to freight
transportation in the United States, including (1) Implementation of
the freight provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141); (2) establishment of the National
Freight Network; (3) development of the Plan; (4) development of
strategies to help States implement State Freight Advisory Committees
and State Freight Plans; (5) development of measures of conditions and
performance in freight transportation; (6) development of freight
transportation investment, data, and planning tools; and (7)
legislative recommendations. The NFAC operates as a discretionary
committee under the authority of the DOT, established in accordance
with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as
amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. See DOT's NFAC Web site for additional
information about the committee's activities at www.transportation.gov/nfac.
    On October 18, 2015, the DOT issued the draft National Freight
Strategic Plan for public comment, available at www.transportation.gov/freight. The NFAC met on November 13, 2015 to discuss and begin
developing Committee comments on the Plan. This Committee will finalize
their comments during this webinar. Members of the public who would
like to submit

comment on the Plan may do so at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOT-OST-2015-0248.
    Agenda: The agenda includes:

    (1) Welcome and opening remarks;
    (2) Update on FAST Act Freight provisions;
    (3) Discussion on the draft National Freight Strategic Plan
    (4) Public comment.

    Public Participation: To participate in this meeting, members of
the public must pre-register by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with name,
affiliation, and contact information no later than Monday, January 4,
2016. Upon email receipt, interested persons will receive a link to the
webinar portal and conference line.
    Written comments: Persons who wish to submit written comments for
consideration by the Committee must email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or send them to
John Drake, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy,
National Freight Advisory Committee, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W82-
320, Washington, DC 20590 by January 4, 2016 to provide sufficient time
for review.

    Dated: December 15, 2015.
John Drake,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-32090 Filed 12-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 23 (Monday, February 4, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7835-7837]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02301]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68759; File No. SR-BOX-2013-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to List and Trade Option Contracts
Overlying 1,000 Shares of the SPDR S&P 500 Exchange-Traded Fund

January 29, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 18, 2013, BOX Options Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or ``BOX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the self-regulatory organization. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules to define certain contract
terms for trading option contracts overlying 1,000 SPDR[supreg] S&P
500[supreg] exchange-traded fund (``SPY ETF''),\3\ (``SPY'') Shares.
The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal
office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and
also on the Exchange's Internet Web site at http://boxexchange.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``SPDR[supreg],'' ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],''
``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P 500[supreg],'' and ``Standard & Poor's 500''
are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services
LLC. The SPY ETF represents ownership in the SPDR S&P 500 Trust, a
unit investment trust that generally corresponds to the price and
yield performance of the SPDR S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5050 (Series of Contracts Open
for Trading) to define certain contract terms for trading option
contracts overlying 1,000 SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] exchange-traded
fund (``SPY ETF''),\4\ (``SPY'') Shares. In

order to list these option contracts overlying 1,000 SPY Shares
(``Jumbo options'') the Exchange is initially proposing to restrict the
listing of Jumbo options to the SPY ETF, and also proposing to define
how strike prices and bids and offers will be expressed for Jumbo
option contracts by further amending Rule 5050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``SPDR[supreg],'' ``Standard & Poor's[supreg],''
``S&P[supreg],'' ``S&P 500[supreg],'' and ``Standard & Poor's 500''
are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor's Financial Services
LLC. The SPY ETF represents ownership in the SPDR S&P 500 Trust, a
unit investment trust that generally corresponds to the price and
yield performance of the SPDR S&P 500 Index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to add to Rule 5050(e) a provision to
permit BOX to list Jumbo contracts on SPY for all expirations
applicable to options overlying 100 shares of SPY. Note that SPY
options are currently the most actively traded option class in terms of
average daily volume (``ADV'').\5\ The Exchange proposes to designate
this most active ETF as eligible for 1,000 share contracts, and
restrict Jumbo contracts to SPY, for which the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has approved the elimination of any
Position Limit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SPY ADV was 2,156,482 contracts in April 2012. ADV for the
same period for the next four most actively traded options was:
Apple Inc. (option symbol AAPL)--1,074,351; S&P 500 Index (option
symbol SPX)--656,250; PowerShares QQQ Trust\SM\, Series 1 (option
symbol QQQ)--573,790; and iShares[supreg] Russell 2000[supreg] Index
Fund (option symbol IWM)--550,316. The Exchange notes that any
expansion of the program would require that a subsequent proposed
rule change be submitted to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contract Terms
    To avoid investor confusion with SPY options that overly [sic]100
shares, the Exchange further proposes to amend Rule 5050 to define how
strike prices will be set and how bids and offers will be defined for
Jumbo options. The Exchange proposes that bids and offers shall be
expressed in terms of dollars per 1/1000th part of the total value of
the contract.
    Rule 5050(e)(2) proposes that strike prices be set at the same
level as for regular options. Thus, a Jumbo option contract to deliver
an ETF at $145 per share would carry a total deliverable value of
$145,000, and the strike price would be set at $145. Proposed Rule
5050(e)(3) provides that bids and offers in Jumbo option contracts
shall be expressed in terms of dollars per 1/1000th part of the total
value of the contract. Thus, if an ETF with a Jumbo option strike price
of $145 was trading at $146 per share, the intrinsic $1 per share value
would denote a total contract value of $1,000, and be expressed as a
bid or offer quote around such intrinsic value.
    The table below demonstrates the difference between a Jumbo option
contract and a standard option contract to call or put shares at $45
per share, with a bid or offer of $3.20 per share:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Standard              Jumbo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shares Deliverable Upon Exercise  100 shares........  1,000 shares
Strike Price if underlying is     45................  45
 $45 per share.
Bid or Offer....................  3.20..............  3.20
Premium Multiplier..............  $100..............  $1,000
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Value of Deliverable..  $4,500............  $45,000
                                 ---------------------------------------
    Total Value of Contract.....  $320..............  $3,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that price protection would not
apply across standard and Jumbo SPY options on an intramarket basis, as
these are separate products. While the Exchange recognizes that trading
different options products that overlie the same security or index
could disperse trading interest across the products to some extent,
with highly-liquid options on the liquid SPY, there generally exists a
critical mass of willing buyers and sellers for both the options and
the underlying securities to mitigate the price protection concerns.
Further, the Exchange believes that because of the liquidity in SPY and
options on SPY, existing market forces should keep the prices between
standard contracts and Jumbo SPY options contracts consistent. With
respect to the related arbitrage, the Exchange understands that the
OCC's portfolio margining process will be set to have positions in a
standard contract and a Jumbo options contract set against each other,
and that consistent cross margining will be available between standard
contracts and Jumbo options contracts. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the availability of Jumbo SPY options contracts is likely
to result in more efficient pricing through arbitrage with standard
contracts.
    Additionally, the Exchange will designate Jumbo SPY options
contracts with a different trading symbol (SPYJ) than the related
standard contract. Moreover, the Exchange believes the terms of Jumbo
SPY options contracts are consistent with the terms of the Options
Disclosure Document.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, BOX
has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the Options Price
Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity to handle the
potential additional traffic associated with the listing and trading of
Jumbo SPY options contracts. The Exchange has further discussed the
proposed listing and trading of Jumbo SPY options contracts with the
OCC, which has represented that it is able to accommodate the proposal.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also consistent
with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act in that it does not impose any burden
on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change will
benefit investors by providing additional methods to trade highly
liquid options on SPY, and providing greater ability to mitigate risk
in managing large portfolios. Specifically, the Exchange believes that
investors would benefit from the introduction and availability of Jumbo
SPY options by making options on large blocks of the SPY ETF more
available as an investing tool, particularly for institutional
investors. As noted above, the proposed rule change intends to adopt a
different

trading symbol to distinguish Jumbo SPY options from the related
regular option contracts and therefore, ease any investor confusion as
to the product they are trading.
    The Exchange also believes Jumbo SPY options will provide investors
with an additional tool for hedging risk in the highly liquid ETF.
Further, the proposed rule change is limited to just the SPY ETF, a
single, high-priced, highly liquid security.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that the Commission previously approved
option contracts on ETFs that overly [sic] 1,000 shares for NYSE
Amex.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Exchange Act Release No. 40157 (July 1, 1998), 63 FR
37426 (July 10, 1998) (Order Approving SR-Amex-96-44).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes this proposed rule change will benefit
investors by providing additional methods to trade options on the
liquid SPY, and providing greater ability to mitigate risk in managing
large portfolios. Specifically, the Exchange believes that investors
would benefit from the introduction and availability of Jumbo SPY
options by making options on large blocks of the SPY ETF more available
as an investing tool, particularly for institutional investors. The
Exchange also believes Jumbo SPY options will provide investors with an
additional tool for hedging risk in the highly liquid ETF. Further, the
proposed rule change is limited to just the SPY ETF, a single, high-
priced, highly liquid security. Finally, the Exchange is not proposing
any limitations regarding market participants that will be able to
trade Jumbo SPY options if they choose.
    For all the reasons stated, the Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, and
believes the proposed change will enhance competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2013-06 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-06. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2013-06 and should be
submitted on or before February 25, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02301 Filed 2-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P