[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 217 (Monday, November 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71264-71270]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23033]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0145; FRL-10015-43-Region 9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California; South Coast
Moderate Area Plan and Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve or conditionally approve portions of a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by California to address
Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') requirements for the 2006 and 2012 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') in the Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin (``South Coast'') PM2.5 nonattainment area.
Specifically, the EPA is approving all but the contingency measure
element of the submitted SIP revision as meeting all applicable
Moderate area requirements for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
and conditionally approving the contingency measure element as meeting
both the Moderate area contingency measure requirement for the 2012
annual PM2.5 NAAQS and the Serious area contingency measure
requirement for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition,
the EPA is approving 2019 and 2022 motor vehicle emissions budgets for
use in transportation conformity analyses for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. The EPA is also reclassifying the South Coast
PM2.5 nonattainment area, including reservation areas of
Indian country and any other area of Indian country within it where the
EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction, as a
Serious nonattainment area for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS
based on the EPA's determination that the area cannot practicably
attain the standard by the applicable Moderate area attainment date of
December 31, 2021. As a consequence of this reclassification,
California is required to submit a Serious area attainment plan that
includes a demonstration of attainment of the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area as expeditiously as
practicable and no later than December 31, 2025.

DATES: This rule will be effective on December 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0145. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashley Graham, Air Planning Office
(AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3877, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
    A. Moderate Area Planning Requirements
    B. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable
Attainment Date
    C. Reclassification of Reservation Areas of Indian Country
    D. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    Epidemiological studies have shown statistically significant
correlations between elevated levels of PM2.5 (particulate
matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less) and premature mortality.
Other important health effects associated with PM2.5
exposure include aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease,
changes in lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms.
Individuals particularly sensitive to PM2.5 exposure include
older adults, people with heart and lung disease, and children.\1\
PM2.5 can be emitted directly into the atmosphere as a solid
or liquid particle (``primary PM2.5'' or ``direct
PM2.5'') or can be formed in the atmosphere as a result of
various chemical reactions among precursor pollutants such as nitrogen
oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia
(``secondary PM2.5'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 78 FR 3086, 3088 (January 15, 2013).
    \2\ EPA, Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter, No. EPA/
600/P-99/002aF and EPA/600/P-99/002bF, October 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA first established annual and 24-hour NAAQS for
PM2.5 on July 18, 1997.\3\ The annual standard was set at
15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, and the 24-hour
(daily) standard was set at 65 [micro]g/m\3\ based on the 3-year
average of the annual 98th percentile values of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each monitor within an area.\4\ On
October 17, 2006, the EPA revised the level of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [micro]g/m\3\ based on a 3-year average of
the annual 98th percentile values of 24-hour concentrations.\5\ On
January 15, 2013, the EPA revised the annual standard to 12.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations.\6\ We refer to this standard as the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 62 FR 38652 (codified at 40 CFR 50.7).
    \4\ The primary and secondary standards were set at the same
level for both the 24-hour and the annual PM2.5
standards.
    \5\ 71 FR 61144.
    \6\ 78 FR 3086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is
required by CAA section 107(d) to designate areas throughout the nation
as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, the EPA
designated the South Coast area as nonattainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ The EPA classified the area as Moderate
nonattainment on June 2, 2014 and reclassified it as Serious
nonattainment for these NAAQS on January 13, 2016.\8\ On January 15,
2015, the EPA designated and classified the South Coast area as
Moderate nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\9\ The
South Coast area is also designated and classified as Moderate

nonattainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 74 FR 58688 (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
    \8\ 79 FR 31566 and 81 FR 1514. The EPA promulgated these
PM2.5 nonattainment area classifications in response to a
2013 decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanding
the EPA's prior implementation rule for the PM2.5 NAAQS
and directing the EPA to promulgate implementation rules pursuant to
subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. Natural Resources Defense
Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
    \9\ 80 FR 2206 (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
    \10\ 70 FR 944 (January 5, 2005) (codified at 40 CFR 81.305). In
November 2007, California submitted the 2007 PM2.5 Plan
to provide for attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standards in
the South Coast. On November 9, 2011, the EPA approved all but the
contingency measures in the 2007 PM2.5 Plan (76 FR
69928), and on October 29, 2013, the EPA approved a revised
contingency measure SIP for the area (78 FR 64402). On July 25,
2016, the EPA determined that the South Coast area had attained the
1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2011-2013
monitoring data, suspending any remaining attainment-related
planning requirements for purposes of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS in this area (81 FR 48350).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The local air district with primary responsibility for developing a
plan to attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area is
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD or
``District''). The District works cooperatively with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) in preparing these plans. Authority for
regulating sources in the South Coast is split between the District,
which has responsibility for regulating stationary and most area
sources, and CARB, which has responsibility for regulating most mobile
sources and some categories of consumer products.
    On July 2, 2020, we proposed to approve or conditionally approve
portions of a SIP revision submitted by California to address CAA
requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast
nonattainment area.\11\ The submitted SIP revision, the ``Final 2016
Air Quality Management Plan (March 2017),'' was adopted by the SCAQMD
Governing Board on March 3, 2017 and submitted by CARB to the EPA on
April 27, 2017.\12\ We refer to those portions of this SIP submission
that address the Serious area requirements for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and the Moderate area requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS as the ``2016 PM2.5 Plan'' or
``Plan.'' The EPA previously approved those portions of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan that pertain to the requirements for implementing
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, except for the contingency measure
component of the Plan.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 85 FR 40026.
    \12\ Letter dated April 27, 2017, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, with enclosures.
    \13\ 84 FR 3305 (February 12, 2019). As part of this action, the
EPA found that, for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
requirement for contingency measures to be undertaken if the area
fails to make RFP under CAA sections 172(c)(9) was moot as applied
to the 2017 milestone year because CARB and the District had
demonstrated to the EPA's satisfaction that the 2017 milestones in
the plan had been met. The EPA took no action with respect to the
RFP contingency measures for the 2020 milestone year or attainment
contingency measures for these NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of our July 2, 2020 action, we proposed to approve the
following elements of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan as meeting the CAA
Moderate area requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: The
2012 base year emissions inventories, the reasonably available control
measure/reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT)
demonstration, the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2021 is impracticable, the reasonable
further progress (RFP) demonstration, the quantitative milestones, the
motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2019 and 2022, and SCAQMD's
commitments to adopt and implement specific rules and measures to
achieve emission reductions and to submit the rules and measures to
CARB for transmittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP. We also
proposed to conditionally approve the contingency measure element of
the 2016 PM2.5 Plan as meeting the Serious area planning
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the Moderate area
planning requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Lastly, we
proposed to reclassify the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment
area, including reservation areas of Indian country, as Serious
nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 85 FR 40026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the contingency measure requirement, in our
proposed rule, we noted that the EPA's longstanding interpretation of
section 172(c)(9) that states may rely on already-implemented measures
as contingency measures (if they provide emissions reductions in excess
of those needed to meet any other nonattainment plan requirements) was
rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case referred to as
Bahr v. EPA (``Bahr'').\15\ In Bahr, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
contingency measures must be measures that would take effect at the
time the area fails to make RFP or to attain by the applicable
attainment date, not before.\16\ Thus, within the geographic
jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, states cannot rely on already-
implemented control measures to comply with the contingency measure
requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F. 3d 1218, 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \16\ Id. at 1235-1237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed conditional approval of the contingency measure
element of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan relied on specific
commitments: (1) From the District to modify an existing rule, Rule 445
(``Wood Burning Devices''), to lower the wood burning curtailment
threshold upon any of the four EPA determinations (i.e., ``findings of
failure'') listed in 40 CFR 51.1014(a); (2) from the District to submit
the revised rule to CARB for transmittal to the EPA by the earlier of
(a) one year from the date of the EPA's conditional approval of the
contingency measures for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard, or
(b) 60 days after the date the EPA makes a determination that the South
Coast area has failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards but no later than one year after the date of the EPA's
conditional approval of the contingency measures for these standards;
\17\ and (3) from CARB to submit the revised District rule to the EPA
as a SIP revision by the earlier of these two dates.\18\ For more
information about these submittals, please see our proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Letter dated February 12, 2020, from Wayne Nastri,
Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB.
    \18\ Letter dated March 3, 2020, from Michael T. Benjamin,
Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Amy
Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX
(transmitting letter dated February 12, 2020, from Wayne Nastri,
Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to reclassification, in the proposed rule, we
explained that under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date
for a Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no
later than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the
area's designation as nonattainment. . .'' The EPA designated the South
Coast area as nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard
effective April 15, 2015.\19\ Therefore, as a result of our
reclassification of the South Coast area as a Serious nonattainment
area, the attainment date under section 188(c)(2) of the Act for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in this area is as expeditiously as
practicable but no later than December 31, 2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 80 FR 2206 (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed rule also identified the Serious area attainment plan
elements that California would, upon reclassification, have to submit
to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious areas,
including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the
Act.\20\ The EPA explained that under section 189(b)(2) of the Act, the
State must submit the required provisions to implement best available
control measures (BACM), including best available control technology
(BACT),\21\ no later than 18 months after

reclassification. Because an up-to-date emissions inventory serves as
the foundation for a state's BACM and BACT determinations, the EPA
proposed to also require the State to submit the emissions inventory
required under CAA section 172(c)(3) within 18 months after the
effective date of final reclassification. Similarly, because an
effective evaluation of BACM and BACT requires evaluation of the
precursor pollutants that must be controlled to provide for expeditious
attainment in the area, the EPA proposed to require the State to submit
any optional precursor insignificance demonstrations by this same date.
The EPA proposed to require the State to submit the attainment
demonstration required under section 189(b)(1)(A) and all other
attainment-related plan elements for the South Coast area no later the
end of the eighth calendar year after designation--i.e., by December
31, 2023. We noted that although section 189(b)(2) generally provides
for up to four years after a discretionary reclassification for the
state to submit the required attainment demonstration, given the timing
of the reclassification action less than two years before the Moderate
area attainment date, it is appropriate in this case for the EPA to
establish an earlier SIP submission deadline to assure timely
implementation of the statutory requirements.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 85 FR 40026.
    \21\ The EPA defines BACM as, among other things, the maximum
degree of emissions reduction achievable for a source or source
category, which is determined on a case-by-case basis considering
energy, environmental, and economic impacts. 59 FR 41998, 42010 and
42014 (August 16, 1994). BACM must be implemented for all categories
of sources in a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment area unless
the state adequately demonstrates that a particular source category
does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
PM2.5 standard. Id. at 42011-42012.
    \22\ Id. at 40054-40055.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period
that ended on August 3, 2020. During this period, the EPA received
comments from three anonymous commenters.\23\ None of the comments
received are relevant to the EPA's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The docket for this rulemaking contains these comment
letters, with the exception of sixteen attachments to one comment
letter that contain copyright and trademark claims. The EPA did not
receive any comments regarding the impact of the Safer Affordable
Fuel Efficient (SAFE) actions (84 FR 51310 (September 27, 2019) and
85 FR 24174 (April 30, 2020)) on the South Coast 2016
PM2.5 Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

A. Moderate Area Planning Requirements

    For the reasons discussed in detail in the proposed rule and
summarized herein, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA is taking final
action to approve or conditionally approve portions of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan submitted by the State of California. We are
finalizing approval of the following elements of the 2016
PM2.5 Plan as meeting the Moderate area requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS:
     The base year emissions inventories as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 172(c)(3);
     the RACM/RACT demonstration as meeting the requirements of
CAA sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C);
     the demonstration that attainment by the Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2021 is impracticable as meeting the
requirements of CAA section 189(a)(1)(B)(ii);
     the RFP demonstration as meeting the requirements of CAA
section 172(c)(2);
     the quantitative milestones as meeting the requirements of
CAA section 189(c);
     the motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2019 and 2022,
because they are derived from an approvable RFP demonstration and meet
the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart A;
\24\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ In our July 2, 2020 action, we proposed to limit the
duration of our approval of the budgets in the 2016 PM2.5
Plan to the period before the effective date of the EPA's adequacy
finding for any subsequently submitted budgets per a request from
CARB (85 FR 40026, 40053). We did not receive any comments on our
proposal to limit the duration of the budgets and are finalizing our
approval of the budgets for this limited period, as proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     the SCAQMD's commitments to adopt and implement specific
rules and measures in accordance with the schedule provided in Chapter
4 of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan to achieve the emission reductions
shown therein, and to submit these rules and measures to CARB for
transmittal to the EPA as a revision to the SIP, as stated on page 9 of
SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution 17-2.
    The EPA is also finalizing a conditional approval of the
contingency measure element of the 2016 PM2.5 Plan as
meeting the requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS and for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. We note
that the EPA determined on September 16, 2020, that the South Coast
area had failed to timely attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,\25\
and that CARB is required to submit specified revisions to Rule 445
(``Wood Burning Devices'') as a SIP revision to the EPA no later than
60 days after this date, consistent with the terms of its commitment
under CAA section 110(k)(4).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 85 FR 57733 (September 16, 2020).
    \26\ Letter dated March 3, 2020, from Michael T. Benjamin,
Chief, Air Quality Planning and Science Division, CARB, to Amy
Zimpfer, Associate Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX
(transmitting letter dated February 12, 2020, from Wayne Nastri,
Executive Officer, SCAQMD, to Richard Corey, Executive Officer,
CARB).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Reclassification as Serious Nonattainment and Applicable Attainment
Date

    In accordance with section 188(b)(1) of the Act, the EPA is taking
final action to reclassify the South Coast area from Moderate to
Serious nonattainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 standard,
based on the agency's determination that the South Coast area cannot
practicably attain the standard by the Moderate area attainment date of
December 31, 2021.
    Under section 188(c)(2) of the Act, the attainment date for a
Serious area ``shall be as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than the end of the tenth calendar year beginning after the area's
designation as nonattainment . . .'' The South Coast area was
designated nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS effective
April 15, 2015.\27\ Therefore, as a result of our reclassification of
the South Coast area as a Serious nonattainment area, section 188(c)(2)
of the Act requires that the area attain the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31,
2025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 80 FR 2206 (codified at 40 CFR 81.305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Reclassification of Reservation Areas of Indian Country

    When the South Coast area was designated nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, five Indian tribes were located within the
boundaries of the nonattainment area: The Cahuilla Band of Mission
Indians of the Cahuilla Reservation, the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, the San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians, and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. At that time, the main
body of land belonging to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians
of the Pechanga Reservation was expressly excluded from the South Coast
2012 PM2.5 nonattainment area. However, since designation,
the tribe has acquired the Meadowbrook parcel, which is located
approximately 30 miles northwest of the northern boundary of the
Reservation and is located within the South Coast PM2.5
nonattainment area.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 85 FR 40026, 40055.

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

    We have considered the relevance of our final action to reclassify
the South Coast area as Serious nonattainment for the 2012
PM2.5 standard for each tribe located within the South Coast
area. As discussed in more detail in our proposed rule, we believe that
the same facts and circumstances that support the reclassification for
the non-Indian country lands also support reclassification for
reservation areas of Indian country \29\ and any other areas of Indian
country where the EPA or a tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has
jurisdiction located within the South Coast nonattainment area.\30\ In
this final action, the EPA is therefore exercising its authority under
CAA section 188(b)(1) to reclassify reservation areas of Indian country
and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a tribe has
demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction geographically located in
the South Coast nonattainment area. Section 188(b)(1) broadly
authorizes the EPA to reclassify a nonattainment area--including any
Indian country located within such an area--that the EPA determines
cannot practicably attain the relevant standard by the applicable
attainment date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ ``Indian country'' as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151 refers to:
``(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (b) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a state, and (c) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same.''
    \30\ 85 FR 40026, 40055-40056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the considerations outlined above and in our proposed
rulemaking that support retention of a uniformly-classified
PM2.5 nonattainment area, and our finding that it is
impracticable for the area to attain by the applicable attainment date,
we are finalizing our reclassification of the reservation areas of
Indian country and any other areas of Indian country where the EPA or a
tribe has demonstrated that the tribe has jurisdiction within the South
Coast nonattainment area to Serious for the 2012 PM2.5
standard.
    Generally, the effect of reclassification is to lower the
applicable ``major source'' emissions thresholds for direct
PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors for purposes of the
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program and the Title V
operating permit program from 100 tpy to 70 tpy,\31\ thus subjecting
more new or modified stationary sources to these requirements.
Reclassification also lowers the de minimis threshold under the CAA's
General Conformity requirements from 100 tpy to 70 tpy.\32\ In this
case, however, reclassification does not change the ``major source''
thresholds because, as a result of the EPA's January 2016
reclassification of the South Coast area as a ``Serious'' nonattainment
area for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the area is already subject
to the 70 tpy major source threshold for Serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas in CAA section 189(b)(3).\33\ Likewise,
reclassification does not affect the applicable General Conformity de
minimis thresholds, because the South Coast area is already subject to
the 70 tpy de minimis threshold for PM2.5 and all
PM2.5 precursors as a result of the EPA's previous
reclassification of the area as Serious for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ CAA sections 189(b)(3) and 501(2)(B).
    \32\ 40 CFR part 93, subpart B.
    \33\ 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016).
    \34\ Id. and 40 CFR 93.153(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA contacted tribal officials early in the process of
developing this action to provide time for tribal officials to have
meaningful and timely input into its development.\35\ On March 12,
2020, during two separate conference calls, the EPA participated in
formal consultation with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and staff-
level consultation with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of
the Pechanga Reservation, following requests from these tribes. During
these calls, EPA staff presented information about the nonattainment
designation for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast area
and about the SCAQMD's request, and EPA and tribal representatives
together discussed the tribe's questions about the implications of the
request for each tribe. At the close of each call, the tribes indicated
that they had no further questions and the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians later requested that the EPA close formal consultation. On
April 30, 2020, the EPA sent a letter to the Morongo Band of Mission
Indians closing formal consultation.\36\ No other Indian tribe has
expressed an interest in discussing this action with the EPA. A summary
of the tribal consultation is included in the docket for this
action.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ As discussed in more detail in our proposed rule, the EPA
sent letters to tribal officials inviting government-to-government
consultation. These letters can be found in the docket.
    \36\ Letter dated April 30, 2020, from Elizabeth Adams,
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Robert
Martin, Tribal Chairman, Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
    \37\ Memo dated April 14, 2020, from Ashley Graham, Air Planning
Office, Air and Radiation Division, EPA Region IX, to Docket No.
EPA-R09-OAR-2019-0145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We notified tribal officials when the proposed action published in
the Federal Register and continue to invite Indian tribes in the South
Coast to contact the EPA with any questions about the effects of this
reclassification on tribal interests and air quality. We note that
although eligible tribes may seek EPA approval of relevant tribal
programs under the CAA, none of the affected tribes will be required to
submit an implementation plan as a result of this reclassification.

D. PM2.5 Serious Area SIP Requirements

    As a consequence of our reclassification of the South Coast area as
a Serious nonattainment area for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS,
California is required to submit additional SIP revisions to satisfy
the statutory requirements that apply to Serious PM2.5
nonattainment areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D,
title I of the Act.
    The Serious area SIP elements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
that California is required to submit are as follows:
    1. Provisions to assure that BACM, including BACT for stationary
sources, for the control of direct PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors shall be implemented no later than four
years after the area is reclassified (CAA section 189(b)(1)(B));
    2. A demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the plan
provides for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no later
than December 31, 2025, or where the state is seeking an extension of
the attainment date under section 188(e), a demonstration that
attainment by December 31, 2025 is impracticable and that the plan
provides for attainment by the most expeditious alternative date
practicable and no later than December 31, 2030 (CAA sections
189(b)(1)(A), 188(c)(2), and 188(e));
    3. Plan provisions that require RFP (CAA 172(c)(2));
    4. Quantitative milestones that are to be achieved every three
years until the area is redesignated attainment and that demonstrate
RFP toward attainment by the applicable date (CAA section 189(c));
    5. Provisions to assure that control requirements applicable to
major stationary sources of PM2.5 also apply to major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors, except where the
state demonstrates to the EPA's satisfaction that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the
standard in the area (CAA section 189(e));
    6. A comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of actual emissions
from all sources of PM2.5 and all PM2.5
precursors in the area (CAA 172(c)(3));

    7. Contingency measures to be implemented if the area fails to meet
RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date (CAA section
172(c)(9)); and
    8. A revision to the NNSR program to lower the applicable ``major
stationary source'' \38\ thresholds from 100 tpy to 70 tpy (CAA section
189(b)(3)) and to satisfy the subpart 4 control requirements for major
stationary sources of PM2.5 precursors (CAA section
189(e)).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For any Serious area, the terms ``major source'' and
``major stationary source'' include any stationary source that emits
or has the potential to emit at least 70 tpy of PM10 (CAA
sections 189(b)(3)).
    \39\ As discussed in our proposed rule, California submitted
NNSR SIP revisions for the South Coast to address the subpart 4 NNSR
requirements for Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas on May
8, 2017, and the EPA conditionally approved these NNSR SIP revisions
on November 30, 2018 (83 FR 61551). The State fulfilled the
commitment that provided the basis for the EPA's conditional
approval of these NNSR SIP revisions by submitting a revised version
of Rule 1325 (``Federal PM2.5 New Source Review
Program'') on April 24, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above in Section I, section 189(b)(2) of the CAA
requires a state to submit the required BACM provisions no later than
18 months after the effective date of final reclassification. Because
an effective BACM evaluation requires an up-to-date emissions inventory
and an evaluation of the precursor pollutants that must be controlled
to provide for expeditious attainment in the area, we are also
requiring the State to submit the emissions inventory required under
CAA section 172(c)(3) and any optional precursor insignificance
demonstrations by this same date. Although section 189(b)(2) generally
provides for up to four years after a discretionary reclassification
for the state to submit the required attainment demonstration, given
the timing of the reclassification action less than two years before
the Moderate area attainment date, we are establishing a deadline of
December 31, 2023 for the State to submit the attainment demonstration
required under section 189(b)(1)(A) and all other attainment related
plan elements for the South Coast area.
    We note that the 2016 PM2.5 Plan submitted on April 27,
2017, includes a Serious area attainment demonstration, an emissions
inventory, attainment-related plan elements, and BACM/BACT provisions,
which the EPA intends to evaluate and act on through subsequent
rulemakings, as appropriate.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves, or conditionally approves, state plans as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practical and legally permissible methods,
under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 8, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter.

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

    Dated: October 10, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(517)(ii)(B)(7) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan--in part.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (517) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (7) The following portions of the ``Final 2016 Air Quality
Management Plan (March 2017),'' adopted March 3, 2017: Chapter 5
(``PM2.5 Modeling Approach''), pages 5-17 through 5-27;
Appendix III (``Base and Future Year Emission Inventory''), Attachment
A (``Annual Average Emissions by Source Category in South Coast Air
Basin'') for PM2.5, NOX, SO2, VOC, and
NH3 for years 2012, 2019, 2021, and 2022, and Attachment D,
tables D-1, D-7, D-11, and D-13; Appendix IV-A (``SCAQMD's Stationary
and Mobile Source Control Measures''), Table IV-A-4 and Section 2
(``PM2.5 Control Measures''); Appendix IV-C (``Regional
Transportation Strategy and Control Measures''), Section III
(``Reasonably Available Control Measure Analysis''); Appendix V
(``Modeling and Attainment Demonstration''), Chapter 6 (``Annual
PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration'') and Attachment 7 (``Annual
Unmonitored Area Analysis Supplement''); Appendix VI-A (``Reasonably
Available Control Measures (RACM)/Best Available Control Measures
(BACM) Demonstration''), pages VI-A-5 through VI-A-11, pages VI-A-22
through VI-A-32, pages VI-A-36 through VI-A-38, Attachment VI-A-1
(``Evaluation of SCAQMD Rules and Regulations''), Attachment VI-A-2
(``Control Measure Assessment''), and Attachment VI-A-3 (``California
Mobile Source Control Program Best Available Control Measures/
Reasonably Available Control Measures Assessment''); Appendix VI-B
(``Impracticability Demonstration for Request for ``Serious''
Classification for 2012 Annual PM2.5 Standard''; Appendix
VI-C (``Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) and Milestone Years''), pages
VI-C-5 through VI-C-14, and Attachment VI-C-1 (``California Existing
Mobile Source Control Program''); Appendix VI-D (``General Conformity
and Transportation Conformity Budget''), pages VI-D-2 through VI-D-4,
excluding tables VI-D-1 and VI-D-2; and Appendix VI-F (``PM Precursor
Requirements'').
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.248 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.248  Identification of plan--conditional approval.

* * * * *
    (k) The EPA is conditionally approving the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for the South Coast with respect to the
contingency measure requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) for both the
Serious area plan for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and the Moderate
area plan for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The conditional approval
is based on a commitment from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (District) in a letter dated February 12, 2020, to adopt
specific rule revisions, and a commitment from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) dated March 3, 2020, to submit the amended
District rule to the EPA by the earlier of one year after the date of
the EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measures for the 2012
annual PM2.5 standard, or 60 days after the date the EPA
determines that the South Coast area has failed to attain the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standards but no later than one year after the
date of the EPA's conditional approval of the contingency measures for
these standards. The EPA determined on September 16, 2020, that the
South Coast area had failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
standards. Therefore, CARB must submit the amended District rule to the
EPA by November 16, 2020. If the District or CARB fail to meet their
commitments, the conditional approval is treated as a disapproval.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
5. In Sec.  81.305, amend the table ``California--2012 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS [Primary],'' by revising the entries under ``Los
Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, CA'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                       California--2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                    [Primary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Designation                           Classification
       Designated area \1\       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \2\              Type              Date \2\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles-South Coast Air
 Basin, CA:
    Los Angeles County (part)...  ..................  Nonattainment.....  December 9, 2020..  Serious.

That portion of Los Angeles
 County which lies south and
 west of a line described as
 follows: Beginning at the Los
 Angeles-San Bernardino County
 boundary and running west along
 the Township line common to
 Township 3 North and Township 2
 North, San Bernardino Base and
 Meridian; then north along the
 range line common to Range 8
 West and Range 9 West; then
 west along the Township line
 common to Township 4 North and
 Township 3 North; then north
 along the range line common to
 Range 12 West and Range 13 West
 to the southeast corner of
 Section 12, Township 5 North
 and Range 13 West; then west
 along the south boundaries of
 Sections 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, and
 7, Township 5 North and Range
 13 West to the boundary of the
 Angeles National Forest which
 is collinear with the range
 line common to Range 13 West
 and Range 14 West; then north
 and west along the Angeles
 National Forest boundary to the
 point of intersection with the
 Township line common to
 Township 7 North and Township 6
 North (point is at the
 northwest corner of Section 4
 in Township 6 North and Range
 14 West); then west along the
 Township line common to
 Township 7 North and Township 6
 North; then north along the
 range line common to Range 15
 West and Range 16 West to the
 southeast corner of Section 13,
 Township 7 North and Range 16
 West; then along the south
 boundaries of Sections 13, 14,
 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 7
 North and Range 16 West; then
 north along the range line
 common to Range 16 West and
 Range 17 West to the north
 boundary of the Angeles
 National Forest (collinear with
 the Township line common to
 Township 8 North and Township 7
 North); then west and north
 along the Angeles National
 Forest boundary to the point of
 intersection with the south
 boundary of the Rancho La
 Liebre Land Grant; then west
 and north along this land grant
 boundary to the Los Angeles-
 Kern County boundary.
    Orange County...............  ..................  Nonattainment.....  December 9, 2020..  Serious.
    Riverside County (part).....  ..................  Nonattainment.....  December 9, 2020..  Serious.
That portion of Riverside County
 which lies to the west of a
 line described as follows:
 Beginning at the Riverside-San
 Diego County boundary and
 running north along the range
 line common to Range 4 East and
 Range 3 East, San Bernardino
 Base and Meridian; then east
 along the Township line common
 to Township 8 South and
 Township 7 South; then north
 along the range line common to
 Range 5 East and Range 4 East;
 then west along the Township
 line common to Township 6 South
 and Township 7 South to the
 southwest corner of Section 34,
 Township 6 South, Range 4 East;
 then north along the west
 boundaries of Sections 34, 27,
 22, 15, 10, and 3, Township 6
 South, Range 4 East; then west
 along the Township line common
 to Township 5 South and
 Township 6 South; then north
 along the range line common to
 Range 4 East and Range 3 East;
 then west along the south
 boundaries of Sections 13, 14,
 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 5
 South, Range 3 East; then north
 along the range line common to
 Range 2 East and Range 3 East;
 to the Riverside-San Bernardino
 County line.
    San Bernardino County (part)  ..................  Nonattainment.....  December 9, 2020..  Serious.
That portion of San Bernardino
 County which lies south and
 west of a line described as
 follows: Beginning at the San
 Bernardino-Riverside County
 boundary and running north
 along the range line common to
 Range 3 East and Range 2 East,
 San Bernardino Base and
 Meridian; then west along the
 Township line common to
 Township 3 North and Township 2
 North to the San Bernardino-Los
 Angeles County boundary.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes areas of Indian country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\2\ This date is April 15, 2015, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-23033 Filed 11-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32806-32808]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14625]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86301; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2019-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 7.37 To Update a Rule Cross Reference

July 3, 2019.
    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 June 25, 2019, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the

proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37 (Order Execution and
Routing) to update a rule cross reference. The proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37 (Order Execution and
Routing) to update a rule cross reference.
    Rule 7.37(b)(7) provides that electronically-entered requests to
cancel or reduce in size MOC Orders or LOC orders in New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') listed securities will be rejected if entered
after the times specified in NYSE Rules 123C(3)(b) and Supplementary
Material .40 to that rule. The NYSE recently amended its rules to
support the transition of NYSE-listed securities to the Pillar trading
platform.\3\ Among other things, when NYSE transitions NYSE-listed
securities to the Pillar trading platform, the NYSE Rule 7.35 Series
will govern auctions on the NYSE and NYSE Rule 123C will no longer be
applicable.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85962 (May 29,
2019), 84 FR 26188 (June 5, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-05) (Approval
Order).
    \4\ The NYSE has announced that, subject to rule approvals, the
NYSE will begin transitioning NYSE-listed securities to Pillar on
August 5, 2019, available here: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/Revised_Pillar_Migration_Timeline.pdf. The NYSE
will publish by separate Trader Update a complete symbol migration
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37(b)(7)(C) to update the
cross reference to the NYSE rule that will be applicable when NYSE-
listed securities transition to the Pillar trading platform. Instead of
cross referencing NYSE Rule 123C(3)(b) and Supplementary Material .40
to that rule, the Exchange proposes to cross reference NYSE Rule
7.35(a)(7), which defines the term ``Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze
Time.'' As provided for in NYSE Rule 7.35B(f)(2), the NYSE will begin
limiting the circumstances when a MOC or LOC Order may be cancelled or
reduced in size beginning at that Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze
Time. These NYSE Pillar rules are substantively the same as current
NYSE Rule 123C(3)(b) as both sets of rules use the same cut-off time
for when the NYSE begins restricting the circumstances when a MOC or
LOC Order may be cancelled or reduced in size, i.e., ten minutes before
the scheduled end of trading.
    The proposed amended rule text will provide as follows (deleted
text in brackets, new text in italics):

    For MOC Orders or LOC Orders in NYSE-listed securities, requests
to cancel or reduce in size that are electronically entered after
the ``Closing Auction Imbalance Freeze Time'' specified in NYSE Rule
7.35(a)(7)[the times specified in NYSE Rule 123C(3)(b) and
Supplementary Material .40 to that rule] will be rejected.

    The Exchange will implement these proposed rule changes on the same
schedule that the NYSE transitions NYSE-listed securities to the Pillar
trading platform. In other words, the current rule will remain
operative for NYSE-listed securities until such time that they
transition to NYSE's Pillar trading platform.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\6\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to amend Rule
7.37 would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and a national market system because it would update
the Exchange's rules to cross reference the NYSE rule that would be
applicable when the NYSE transitions its listed securities to the
Pillar trading platform. The proposed rule change does not propose any
new or novel functionality because the NYSE Pillar rules provide for
the same cut-off time and circumstances for cancelling or reducing in
size MOC or LOC Orders as provided for in NYSE Rule 123C(3)(b) and
Supplementary Material .40 to that rule. The Exchange therefore
believes that the proposed rule change would protect investors and the
public interest, in general, because it is designed to promote
transparency and clarity in Exchange rules.

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 competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather, would
update Rule 7.37 to update a cross reference to the NYSE rule that
would be applicable when the NYSE transitions its listed securities to
the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange therefore believes that the
proposed rule change is designed to promote transparency and clarity in
Exchange rules.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

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

investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \9\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSENAT-2019-15 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-NYSENAT-2019-15. 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 offices 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-NYSENAT-2019-15, and should be submitted
on or before July 30, 2019.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-14625 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 103)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30644-30645]
[DOCID:fr30my06-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 723

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0051; FRL-8069-4]
RIN 2070-AD58

Premanufacture Notification Exemption for Polymers; Amendment of
Polymer Exemption Rule to Exclude Certain Perfluorinated Polymers;
Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: This document reopens the public comment period originally
established for the proposed rule issued in the Federal Register on
March 7, 2006 (71 FR 11484) (FRL-7735-5). In that document, EPA
proposed to amend the polymer exemption rule which provides an
exemption from the premanufacture notification (PMN) requirements of
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), to exclude from eligibility
polymers containing as an integral part of their composition, except as
impurities, certain perfluoroalkyl moieties consisting of a CF3- or
longer chain length.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 31, 2006.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0051. All documents in the
docket are listed in the index for the docket. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,

if only available in hard copy form, at the OPPT Docket, EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Rm. B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator,

Environmental Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Geraldine Hilton, Chemical
Control Divison (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document reopens the public comment
period established in the Federal Register issued on March 7, 2006 (71
FR 11484). In that document, EPA sought comments on a proposed rule to
exclude certain perfluorinated polymers from the polymer exemption
rule. EPA is hereby reopening the comment period, which closed on May
8, 2006, to July 31, 2006. EPA has decided to reopen the comment period
in response to several requests that additional time is need to
adequately compile information, coordinate views among like-minded
stakeholders, and submit meaningful comments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 723

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 18, 2006.
Charles M. Auer,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. E6-8245 Filed 5-26-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3530-3532]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01057]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76907; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule
132.30(9)--Equities To Conform the Exchange's Rules to Industry-Wide
Standards for Recording the Capacity in Which a Member Organization
Executes a Transaction

January 14, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)\1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'')\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on January 11, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 Rule 132.30(9)--Equities to conform
the Exchange's rules to industry-wide standards for recording the
capacity in which a member organization executes a transaction. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .30 of Rule
132--Equities (``Rule 132'') to conform the Exchange's rules to
industry-wide standards for recording the capacity in which a member
organization executes a transaction. To effect this change, the
Exchange proposes to eliminate the current requirement to identify the
account for which an order was executed and require instead that
clearing members and member organizations submit account type
indicators (``ATI'') reflecting the capacity in which the member
organization executed a transaction (e.g., agency, principal or
riskless principal). The Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change would align the Exchange's rules with industry-wide conventions
focusing on the capacity in which a broker-dealer acts in effecting a
transaction and, by eliminating the complex set of ATIs developed over
the years, significantly simplify order entry on the Exchange.
Background
    Rule 132 requires clearing member organizations submitting
transactions to comparison to include the audit trail data elements set
forth in Supplementary Material .30. Rule 132.30(9) requires that all
orders submitted to the Exchange include specified trade data elements,
including ``[w]hether the account for which the order was executed was
that of a member or member organization or of a non-member or non-
member organization.'' The Exchange's affiliate, New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), which has the same rule,\4\ has periodically
published guidance regarding the ATIs that can be used to satisfy this
requirement.\5\ ATIs are included as part of the audit trail data
reported for each transaction on the Exchange. The Exchange also uses
ATIs to capture program trade information \6\ for those portions of the
program trades that are submitted to and executed on the Exchange. In
connection with this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to
retire the unique ATIs used to capture program trading information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Rule 132.30(9). The NYSE has filed to amend its
rule relating to ATIs to conform to industry-wide standards for
recording the capacity in which a member organization executes a
transaction. See SR-NYSE-2016-07 (``NYSE ATI Filing'').
    \5\ See, e.g., Information Memos 85-37 (Nov. 12, 1985); 88-29
(Oct. 19, 1988); 92-34 (Nov. 13, 1992); 96-36 (Dec. 5, 1996); 02-59
(Dec. 17, 2002); 09-31 (June 24, 2009); 12-25 (October 9, 2012); 14-
04 (January 30, 2014). The current list contains 24 distinct ATIs.
    \6\ ``Program Trading'' means either (1) index arbitrage, or (2)
any trading strategy involving the related purchase or sale of a
basket or group of 15 or more stocks. See Rule 7410(m)--Equities.
    \7\ See NYSE ATI Filing, supra note 3. Prior to 2009, NYSE
member organizations reported program trading activity to the NYSE
via the Daily Program Trading Report (``DPTR''). Following
decommissioning of the DPTR requirement in July 2009, the NYSE has
used ATI data to report program trading statistics to the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') and the public. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60179 (June 26, 2009), 74 FR
31786, 31786-87 (July 2, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-61). Unlike the NYSE,
the Exchange does not have a requirement to provide weekly
statistics regarding program trading activity to either the
Commission or the public. In addition, the Exchange did not adopt
the DPTR requirement and uses ATIs to capture program trade
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange proposes to amend the current requirement in
subsection (9) of Rule 132.30 that clearing member organizations
identify whether the account for which an order was executed was that
of a member or member organization or of a non-member or non-member
organization. The current requirement can be satisfied by entering the
appropriate ATI from a list of ATIs that have evolved over the past 30
years.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In place of this cumbersome process, the Exchange proposes to
require member organizations to identify the capacity in which the
member organization executed the transaction as follows: agency,
principal or riskless principal.\9\ The ``principal'' category would
include proprietary trades by a member on the trading Floor relating to
the member's error account pursuant to Rule 134--Equities.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In general, the term ``capacity'' refers to whether a
broker-dealer acts as agent, i.e., directly on behalf of a customer,
or whether the broker-dealer acts as principal, i.e., for its own
account, in a transaction. A riskless principal transaction is one
where a broker-dealer receives a customer order and then immediately
executes an identical order in the marketplace, while taking on the
role of principal, in order to fill the customer order pursuant to
Rule 5320--Equities.
    \10\ Rule 134--Equities requires a member or member organization
who acquires or assumes a security position resulting from an error
transaction to clear such error transaction in the member's or
member organization's error account, or in the error account
established for a group of members. Rule 123.22--Equities further
requires members to enter orders executed to offset transactions
made in error into an electronic system and sends a copy of such
order to an electronic system on the Floor within 60 seconds of
execution. See also Rule 123(e)--Equities (defining system entry).
This type of proprietary trade is currently identified by the ``Q''
account type indicator, which would be retained to identify these
trading Floor-based executions.

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

    By requiring member organizations to identify the capacity in which
a broker-dealer enters an order, the Exchange would be harmonizing its
order entry requirements with those of other national securities
exchanges and the NYSE.\11\ The proposed change would also simplify the
order entry process at the Exchange and eliminate the requirement for
member organizations to use order entry requirements unique to the
Exchange, thereby reducing complexity in the marketplace. This proposed
amendment would not alter a member organization's obligation to meet
order audit trail system requirements, as set forth in the Rule 7400
Series--Equities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Rule 11.21; BATS
Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BATS-Y'') Rule 11.21; EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA'') Rule 11.5; EDGX Exchange, Inc. Rule 11.5; and NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') Rule 4611(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will publish an Information Memo advising member
organizations of the proposed change that will provide guidance of
which ATIs should be submitted in connection with agency, principal, or
riskless principal capacity.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, because it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change would remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because
it would provide greater harmonization between order entry on the
Exchange and other marketplaces, resulting in greater uniformity and
more efficient order entry to enable member organizations to use the
same order-market conventions across all equities markets. As such, the
proposed rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not intended to address competitive issues, but rather it is designed
to provide greater harmonization between Exchange and other markets in
the marking of orders, resulting in less burdensome and more efficient
order entry.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act\14\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) requires the Exchange to
give the Commission written notice of the Exchange's intent to file
the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of
the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the
date of filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as
designated by the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)\17\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\18\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B)\19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2016-07. 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-NYSEMKT-2016-07 and should
be

submitted on or before February 11, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-01057 Filed 1-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 247 (Thursday, December 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 80449]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32450]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2005-20383]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a
document dated October 28, 2015, the Maine Eastern Railroad (MERR) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2005-20383.
    This request is for relief from the mechanical locking requirements
found in 49 CFR 236.312, Movable bridge, interlocking of signal
appliances with bridge devices, on the Carlton Bridge at Bath, ME,
Milepost 30.0 on the Rockland Branch. Specifically, MERR requests
permission to detect displacement of the bridge-locking members when
displaced more than 2 inches from their proper position, instead of the
existing 1-inch requirement.
    MERR states that it was granted relief from the 1-inch locking
requirement in 2005 in Docket Number FRA-2005-20383, but allowed that
waiver to expire in 2010. MERR notes that it is not possible to
maintain the 1-inch span lock retraction limit in cold-temperature
extremes. These conditions will cause the movable span-locking members
to move within the fixed span positions enough to cause a noncompliance
of the 1-inch requirement. The contraction of the steel affects the
moveable span's west-end span lock adjustment, which requires a
maintainer to travel to the bridge piers to seasonally adjust both
west-end span lock circuit controller boxes to a setting of 2 inches to
compensate for the contraction. Later in the season, the settings must
be returned to 1 inch. This often places the maintainer at a safety
risk due to icy conditions. The span lock members extend approximately
13 inches in length into the fixed portions when the movable span is
locked with the fixed span.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
(DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by February 8, 2016 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety. Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-32450 Filed 12-23-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 89 (Monday, May 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 26749]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11283]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1962-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New Mexico; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Mexico (FEMA-1962-DR), DATED March 24, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 28, 2011.

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: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New Mexico is hereby amended to include the following
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of March 24, 2011.
    The Pueblo of Acoma for Public Assistance.

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. 2011-11283 Filed 5-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P