[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76775-76777]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31473]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65864; File No. SR-NYSEAMEX-2011-90]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Amex LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend NYSE
Rule 104(a)(1)(A) To Reflect That Designated Market Maker Unit Quoting
Requirements Are Based on Consolidated Average Daily Volume

December 2, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 18, 2011, NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex'' or the ``Exchange'')
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 Exchange. The Exchange has designated the
proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule change
under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Amex Equities Rule 104(a)(1)(A)
to reflect that, when determining the specific percentage quoting
requirement applicable to a Designated Market Maker unit (``DMM
unit''), volume for the particular security is based on consolidated
average daily volume (``CADV''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and http://www.nyse.com.

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 NYSE Amex Equities Rule 104(a)(1)(A)
\4\ to reflect that, when determining the specific percentage quoting
requirement applicable to a DMM unit,\5\ volume for the particular
security is based on CADV.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NYSE Amex Equities Rule 104 is currently in effect during a
pilot period (``New Market Model Pilot'' or ``NMM Pilot''). The
Exchange adopted the NMM Pilot pursuant to its merger with the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''). See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 59022 (November 26, 2008), 73 FR 73683 (December 3,
2008) (SR-NYSEALTR-2008-10) (the ``NYSE Amex NMM Approval''). See
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58845 (October 24, 2008),
73 FR 64379 (October 29, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-46) (the ``NYSE NMM
Approval''). The Exchange has extended the operation of the NMM
Pilot several times and it is currently set to expire on January 31,
2012. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64773 (June 29, 2011),
76 FR 39453 (July 6, 2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2011-43).
    \5\ See NYSE Amex Equities Rule 98(b)(2). ``DMM unit'' means any
member organization, aggregation unit within a member organization,
or division or department within an integrated proprietary
aggregation unit of a member organization that (i) Has been approved
by NYSE Regulation pursuant to section (c) of NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 98, (ii) is eligible for allocations under NYSE Amex Equities
Rule 103B as a DMM unit in a security listed or traded on the
Exchange, and (iii) has met all registration and qualification
requirements for DMM units assigned to such unit.
    \6\ Given the multitude of venues where equity securities trade,
CADV is more reflective of the trading characteristics of a security
than the volume on any single market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A DMM unit must maintain a bid or an offer at the National Best Bid
and National Best Offer (``inside'') a minimum of either 5% or 10% of
the trading day, depending on trading volume for the security. NYSE
Amex Equities Rule 104(a)(1)(A) currently reflects for one of the
calculations, but not the other, that, when determining the specific
percentage quoting requirement applicable to a DMM unit, trading volume
for the particular security is based on volume ``on the Exchange.'' The
reference to ``on the Exchange'' was inadvertently included in the
Exchange's proposal to implement the NMM Pilot, which was based on the
same language that was approved by the Commission in the

NYSE NMM Approval.\7\ In this regard, and as reflected in the NYSE NMM
Approval, the Exchange intended that trading volume for a particular
security would be based on CADV when determining the specific
percentage quoting requirement applicable to a DMM unit.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NYSE has filed a similar proposal to similarly change the
text of NYSE Rule 104(a)(1)(A) from volume ``on the Exchange'' to
``consolidated'' volume.
    \8\ See NYSE NMM Approval at 64381, which states that ``[f]or
securities that have a consolidated average daily volume of less
than one million shares per calendar month, a DMM Unit must maintain
a bid or an offer at the NBBO for at least 10% of the trading day
(calculated as an average over the course of a calendar month). For
securities that have a consolidated average daily volume of equal to
or greater than one million shares per calendar month, a DMM Unit
must maintain a bid or an offer at the NBBO for at least 5% or more
of the trading day (calculated as an average over the courts (sic)
of a calendar month.'' See also NYSE NMM Approval at n.71. A
subsequent NYSE rule change similarly noted that, ``with respect to
maintaining a continuous two-sided quote with reasonable size, DMMs
must maintain a bid or offer at the NBBO * * * at a prescribed level
based on the average daily volume of the security. Securities that
have a consolidated average daily volume of less than one million
shares per calendar month are defined as Less Active Securities and
securities that have a consolidated average daily volume of equal to
or greater than one million shares per calendar month are defined as
More Active Securities. For Less Active Securities, a [DMM] unit
must maintain a bid or an offer at the NBBO for at least 10% of the
trading day during a calendar month. For More Active Securities, a
[DMM] unit must maintain a bid or an offer at the NBBO for at least
5% or more of the trading day during a calendar month.'' See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58971 (November 17, 2008), 73 FR
71070 (November 24, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-115) at n.5. CADV is
similarly used to differentiate between ``more active'' and ``less
active'' securities under NYSE Amex Equities Rule 103B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, NYSE Amex Equities Rule 104(a)(1)(A) would reflect
that, with respect to maintaining a continuous two-sided quote with
reasonable size, DMM units must maintain a bid or an offer at the
inside at least 10% of the trading day for securities in which the DMM
unit is registered with a consolidated average daily volume of less
than one million shares, and at least 5% for securities in which the
DMM unit is registered with a consolidated average daily volume equal
to or greater than one million shares.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\9\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\
in particular, because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the proposed change would align the text of NYSE Amex Equities Rule
104(a)(1)(A) with the previously approved manner by which to measure
trading volume of a particular security, as set forth in NYSE Amex
Equities Rule 103B, and consistent with the NYSE NMM Approval order,
which also discussed the use of CADV, and not just trading volume on
the Exchange, for purposes of measuring the quoting requirement
applicable to a DMM unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 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.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Such waiver will allow the Exchange's Rules to immediately
reflect the fact that DMM unit quoting requirements are calculated
based on CADV rather than trading volume on the Exchange. Because CADV
is more reflective of the trading characteristics of a security than
the volume on any single market, investors will benefit from
implementation of the proposed rule change without undue delay.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-NYSEAMEX-2011-90 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-NYSEAMEX-2011-90. 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's
principal office and on its Internet Web site at http://www.nyse.com.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make publicly
available. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEAMEX-
2011-90 and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-31473 Filed 12-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                   DRAFT AGENDA FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)                       PUBLIC VIRTUAL PEER REVIEW MEETING                               SEPTEMBER 15, 2020                                                           FIFRA SAP WEB SITE: https://www.epa.gov/sap                 DOCKET ID NUMBER: EPA - HQ - OPP - 2020 - 0263                                                              MEETING LOCATION: Phone and Webcast     For Video Link and Audio Registration (to Receive call-in number) go to:                             https://www.epa.gov/sap                                                    [Please note that all times are approximate as noted at the      end of the Agenda. Agency speakers may change based on availability.]                                                 Title:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Peer Review for:   The Use of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) to Derive Extrapolation Factors and Evaluate Developmental Neurotoxicity for Human Health Risk Assessment                                                                                Day 1                              Tuesday, September 15, 2020                                         Day 1                              Tuesday, September 15, 2020

                    10:00 A.M. 	Opening of Meeting  -  Tamue L. Gibson, MS, Designated Federal Official, EPA, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP)

  10:10 A.M. 		Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  Robert E. Chapin,              PhD, FIFRA SAP Chair

 10:20 A.M.	Welcome  -  Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Esq, Assistant Administrator, EPA/OCSPP

 10:25 A.M.	Greetings and Introduction from the Office Director and Division Director -  Edward Messina, Acting Office Director, EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP); Dana Vogel, Division Director, EPA, OPP, Health Effects Division (HED)

  10:30 A.M. 	OPP Technical Presentation  - Introduction and Overview of the Regulatory Use of the New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)  -  Monique Perron, PhD, EPA, OPP, HED

  11:15 A.M.		BREAK

  11:30 A.M.		FIFRA SAP Discussion on OPP Technical Presentation

  12:30 P.M.		LUNCH BREAK

    1:15 P.M.		Development of NAMs to Evaluate Developmental Neurotoxicity  -               EPA, Office of  Research Development (ORD)                  3:00 P.M.		BREAK

    3:15 P.M.		FIFRA SAP Discussion on ORD Technical Presentation

    4:00 P.M.		Use of in vitro Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition Data to Develop                    Data-Derived Extrapolation Factor's - EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs

    5:00 P.M.		FIFRA SAP Discussion on ORD Technical Presentation

    5:30 P.M.	Adjourn

                                        Day 2                               Tuesday, September 16, 2020                                        Day 2                               Tuesday, September 16, 2020

                    10:00 A.M. 	Opening of Meeting  -  Tamue L. Gibson, MS, Designated Federal Official, EPA, OCSPP, OSCP

 10:05 A.M. 	Panel Members: Follow-up from the Previous Day  -  Robert E. Chapin, PhD, FIFRA SAP Chair

  10:15 A.M.	Public Comments

  12:00 P.M. 		LUNCH BREAK

    1:00 P.M.		Charge Question 1: NAMs for Development Neurotoxicity

    2:30 P.M.		BREAK

    2:45 P.M.		Charge Question 2: NAMs for Development Neurotoxicity

    4:00 P.M.	Charge Question 3: NAMs for Development Neurotoxicity

    5:30 P.M.	ADJOURN

                                       Day 3                              Thursday, September 17, 2020                                        Day 3                              Thursday, September 17, 2020

                  10:00 A.M. 	Opening of Meeting  -  Tamue L. Gibson, MS, Designated Federal Official, EPA, OCSPP, OSCP

10:05 A.M. 	Panel Members: Follow-up from the Previous Day  -  Robert E. Chapin, PhD, FIFRA SAP Chair

10:20 A.M. 		Charge Question 4: NAMs for Development Neurotoxicity

11:30 A.M.		Charge Question 5: Data-derived Extrapolation Factor's Using In             Vitro AChE Inhibition Data

12:30 P.M.		LUNCH BREAK

  1:15 P.M.		Charge Question 6: Data-derived Extrapolation Factor's Using In             Vitro AChE Inhibition Data

  3:00 P.M.		BREAK

  3:15 P.M.		Charge Question 7: Data-derived Extrapolation Factor's Using In             Vitro AChE Inhibition Data

  5:30 P.M.	            Adjourn

                                       Day 4                               Friday, September 18, 2020                                        Day 4                               Friday, September 18, 2020

                     10:00 A.M. 	Opening of Meeting  -  Tamue L. Gibson, MS, Designated Federal Official, EPA, OCSPP, OSCP

  10:05 A.M. 		Panel Members: Follow-up from the Previous Day  -  Robert E. Chapin,              PhD, FIFRA SAP Chair

  10:20 A.M. 		Charge Question 8: Data-derived Extrapolation Factor's Using In             Vitro AChE Inhibition Data

  11:30 A.M. 		BREAK

                  11:45  A.M.	Closing Remarks  -  Robert E. Chapin, PhD, FIFRA SAP Chair & Other Panel Members

  12:00 P.M.		Adjourn

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Tamue Gibson, M.S., via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


 MEMORANDUM

DATE:06/16/2014 FROM: 		Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 TO:CLEAN Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602 SUBJECT:	Grand March for Climate Change Action held on 06/16/2014

SUMMARY:

EPA Region 8's Regional Administrator, Shaun McGrath, attended the Grand March for Climate Change Action held on 06/16/2014 to discuss the President's Climate Action Plan and the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Shaun McGrath/EPA Region 8

External Stakeholders Members of the Public and Press

ATTACHMENTS None.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 67 (Tuesday, April 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19549-19551]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07234]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88541; File No. SR-NYSENAT-2020-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Add the Exchange's
Supervision Rules to the List of Minor Rule Violations in Rule 10.9217

April 1, 2020.
    On March 18, 2020, NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to add the Exchange's supervision rules to the
list of minor rule violations in Rule 10.9217. On March 30, 2020, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which
superseded and replaced the proposed rule change in its entirety, and
is described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the self-regulatory organization.\3\ The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, from interested persons, and is approving the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified the relationship
between its supervisory rules and those of its affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. The Exchange's Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to add the Exchange's supervision rules to
the list of minor rule violations in Rule 10.9217. This Amendment No. 1
to SR-NYSENat-2020-12 replaces SR-NYSENat-2020-12 as originally filed
and supersedes such filing in its entirety. 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to add the Exchange's supervision rules to
the list of minor rule violations in Rule 10.9217. Rule 10.9217 sets
forth the list of rules under which an ETP Holder or Associated Person
may be subject to a fine under a minor rule violation plan as described
in Rule 10.9216(b).
Proposed Rule Change
    First, the Exchange proposes to add the following new paragraph (d)
to Rule 10.9217:

    Nothing in this Rule shall require the Exchange to impose a fine
for a violation of any rule under this Minor Rule Plan. If the
Exchange determines that any violation is not minor in nature, the
Exchange may, at its discretion, proceed under the Rule 10.9000
Series rather than under this Rule.

    The language is based on NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') Rule
10.9217(d). Existing paragraphs (d) through (f) of Rule 9217 would
become paragraphs (e), (f) and (g).
    Second, the Exchange proposes to add Rules 11.3.2 (Violations
Prohibited), 11.5.1 (Written Procedures) and 11.5.2 (Responsibility of
ETP Holders) to the list of rules in Rule 10.9217 eligible for
disposition pursuant to a fine under Rule 10.9216(b). Rules 11.3.2,
11.5.1 and 11.5.2 are the Exchange's supervision rules for equities
trading.
    Rule 11.3.2 provides that no ETP Holder shall engage in conduct in
violation of the Exchange Act, the rules or regulations thereunder, the
By-Laws, or Exchange Rules, and that every ETP Holder shall supervise
persons associated with the ETP Holder as to assure compliance with
those requirements.
    Rule 11.5.1 governs written procedures and requires ETP Holders to
establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise
properly the activities of its Associated Persons and to assure their
compliance with applicable securities laws, rules, regulations and
statements of policy promulgated thereunder, with the rules of the
designated self-regulatory organization, where appropriate, and with
Exchange rules.
    Rule 11.5.2 provides that final responsibility for proper
supervision rests with the ETP Holder, and that the ETP Holder shall
designate a partner, officer or manager in each office of supervisory
jurisdiction, including the main office, to carry out the written
supervisory procedures.
    Rules 11.3.2, 11.5.1 and 11.5.2 are substantially similar to
certain provisions of the New York Stock Exchange LLC's (``NYSE'')
supervision Rule 3110. Specifically, NYSE Rule 3110(a) requires, in
part, that NYSE member organizations establish and maintain a system to
supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably
designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and
regulations, and with applicable NYSE rules and that final
responsibility for proper supervision rests with the member
organization. NYSE Rule 3110(b)(1) requires NYSE member organizations
to establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise the
types of business in which it engages and the activities of its
associated persons that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance
with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable
NYSE rules. Both NYSE Rules 3110(a) and (b)(1) are separately eligible
for a minor rule fine under the NYSE's version of Rule 9217.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NYSE Rules 3110 (Supervision) & 9217.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effectuate this change, the Exchange proposes to add ``Failure
to comply with the supervision requirements of Rules 11.3.2 and
11.5.1'' and ``Failure to comply with the supervision requirements of
Rules 11.3.2 and Rule 11.5.2'' to the list of rule violations in
current subparagraph (e) of Rule 9217 titled ``Record Keeping and Other
Minor Rule Violations.'' As noted above, subparagraph (e) of Rule 9217
would become new subparagraph (f).
    Similarly, the Exchange would add two new entries to the Fine
Schedule in current Rule 9217(f)(2), which would become subparagraph
(g)(2). First, the Exchange would add a new number 4 to the chart in
subparagraph (f)(2) titled ``Failure to comply with the supervision
requirements as set forth in Rules 11.3.2 and 11.5.1'' and
corresponding proposed fine levels of $2,000 for a first level fine,
$4,000 for a second level fine, and $5,000 for a third level fine.
Second, the Exchange would add a new number 5 to the chart in
subparagraph (f)(2) titled ``Failure to comply with the supervision
requirements as set forth in

Rules 11.3.2 and 11.5.2'' and corresponding proposed fine levels of
$2,000 for a first level fine, $4,000 for a second level fine, and
$5,000 for a third level fine.
    The proposed fine levels are consistent with current Exchange fine
levels and comparable to those in the NYSE fine schedule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE 9217. The Exchange notes that it must provide the
Commission prompt notice of any violation with sanction over $2,500,
in accordance with Securities Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c). See 17 CFR
240.19d-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\7\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Minor rule fines provide a meaningful sanction for minor or
technical violations of rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change will strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement responsibilities in cases where full
disciplinary proceedings are unwarranted in view of the minor nature of
the particular violation. Specifically, the proposed rule change is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
because it will provide the Exchange the ability to issue a minor rule
fine for violations of its rules governing supervision requirements in
situations where either a cautionary action letter or a more formal
disciplinary action may not be warranted or appropriate.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that adding rules based on the
rules of its affiliate to the Exchange's minor rule plan would promote
fairness and consistency in the marketplace by permitting the Exchange
to issue a minor rule fine for violations of substantially similar
rules that are eligible for minor rule treatment on the Exchange's
affiliate, thereby harmonizing minor rule plan fines across affiliated
exchanges for the same conduct. As noted above, Rules 11.3.2, 11.5.1
and 11.5.2 are substantially similar to certain provisions of NYSE Rule
3110. NYSE Rule 3110(a) and (b)(1) are each separately eligible for a
minor rule fine under NYSE Rule 9217.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes that the proposed amendments to Rule
10.9217 are consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\9\ which
provides that members and persons associated with members shall be
appropriately disciplined for violation of the provisions of the rules
of the exchange, by expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities,
functions, and operations, fine, censure, being suspended or barred
from being associated with a member, or any other fitting sanction. As
noted, the proposed rule change would provide the Exchange ability to
sanction minor or technical violations pursuant to the Exchange's
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 change is not
designed to address any competitive issue but rather to update the
Exchange's rules to strengthen the Exchange's ability to carry out its
oversight and enforcement functions and deter potential violative
conduct.

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. Solicitation of Comments on the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified
by Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, 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-2020-12 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-2020-12. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSENAT-2020-12 and should be submitted
on or before April 28, 2020.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\10\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments and to perfect the mechanism of a free and

open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest. The Commission also believes that
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act \12\ which require that
the rules of an exchange enforce compliance with, and provide
appropriate discipline for, violations of Commission and Exchange
rules. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposal, as modified by
Amendment 1, is consistent with the public interest, the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the Act,\13\ which governs minor
rule violation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange proposes to add the Exchange's
supervision rules to the list of Minor Rule violations. Similar
supervision rules are eligible for a minor rule fine under an
affiliated exchange. The Commission believes that the proposed rule, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, provides a reasonable means of addressing
violations that do not rise to the level of requiring formal
disciplinary proceedings, while providing greater flexibility in
handling certain violations. However, the Commission expects, as
suggested by the Exchange's proposed introduction to its Rule 10.9217,
that the Exchange will continue to conduct surveillance with due
diligence and make determinations based on its findings, on a case-by-
case basis, regarding whether a sanction under the rule is appropriate,
or whether a violation requires formal disciplinary action. The
Commission further notes that, as before, the Exchange must give the
Commission prompt notice of any violation with sanction over $2,500, in
accordance with Securities Exchange Act Rule 19d-1(c).\14\ Accordingly,
the Commission believes the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1
raises no novel or significant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons discussed above, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\15\ for approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the
thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of the filing
thereof in the Federal Register. The proposal merely adds rules and
language already in use at affiliated exchanges. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that a full notice-and-comment period is not
necessary before approving the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\16\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder,\17\ that the proposed rule change
(SR-NYSENAT-2020-12), as modified by Amendment No. 1 be, and hereby is,
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07234 Filed 4-6-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 163 (Thursday, August 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43738-43741]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17804]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0713: FRL-9998-36-Region 9]

Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Antelope
Valley Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District; Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of California addressing the nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and one SIP revision regarding a permit rule.
These SIP revisions address the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management
District (AVAQMD or District) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District (VCAPCD or District) portions of the California SIP. This
action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
and its implementing regulations.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0713 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Manny Aquitania, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105;<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. The State's Submittal
    A. What did the State submit?
    B. What is the purpose of the submitted certification letters?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted permit rule?
III. Analysis of Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements
    A. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD)
    B. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 10, 2019, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and one
SIP revision regarding a permit rule. The EPA received one comment,
stating that Section V, Incorporation by Reference of the proposed
rule, contained a minor administrative error regarding what provisions
were to be incorporated by reference. In response, Section V of today's
Federal Register notice now clearly states we are proposing to
incorporate into the SIP Ventura County Rule 10, ``Required Permits''.
    On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone NAAQS
of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Upon promulgation of a new or
revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate as nonattainment
any area that is violating the NAAQS based on the three most recent
years of ambient air quality data. The two California air districts
that are subject to this action were designated nonattainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS on April 30, 2012, using years 2009-2011
ambient air quality data.\2\ At the time of designation, the AVAQMD was
classified as a severe ozone nonattainment area as part of the Mojave
Desert Air Basin and VCAPCD was classified as a serious ozone
nonattainment area as part of the South Central Coast Air Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
    \2\ 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012).

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

    On March 6, 2015, the EPA issued a final rule entitled,
``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (``SIP Requirements
Rule''), which establishes the requirements and deadlines that state,
tribal, and local air quality management agencies must meet as they
develop implementation plans for areas where ozone concentrations
exceed the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\3\ Based on the initial
nonattainment designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, each
District was required to make a SIP revision addressing NNSR no later
than July 20, 2015.\4\ This requirement may be met by submitting a SIP
revision consisting of a new or revised NNSR permit program, or an
analysis demonstrating that the existing SIP-approved NNSR permit
program meets the applicable 2008 ozone requirements and a letter
certifying the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 80 FR 12263 (March 6, 2015). The SIP Requirements Rule
addresses a range of nonattainment area SIP requirements for the
2008 ozone NAAQS, including requirements pertaining to attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP), reasonably
available control technology, reasonably available control measures,
major new source review, emission inventories, and the timing of SIP
submissions and of compliance with emission control measures in the
SIP. The rule also revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes
anti-backsliding requirements.
    \4\ 40 CFR 51.1114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2017, the EPA issued a final rule entitled,
``Findings of Failure to Submit State Implementation Plan Submittals
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (``FFS
Rule''). The rule found that certain state and local air agencies,
including the AVAQMD and VCAPCD, had failed to submit a SIP revision in
a timely manner to satisfy specific New Source Review requirements that
apply to nonattainment areas. The rule established certain deadlines
for the imposition of sanctions, if a state does not submit a timely
SIP revision addressing the requirements for which the finding was
made, and for the EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP)
to address any outstanding SIP requirements.

II. The State's Submittal

A. What did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the dates the submitted 2008 Ozone Certification
letters and permit rule addressed by this proposal were adopted by each
air District and submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), the agency responsible for California SIP submittals.

                                             Table 1--SIP Submittals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adoption/
               District                    Rule No.            Rule title           amend date    Submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAQMD................................             N/A  2008 Ozone Certification       7/17/2018       8/31/2018
VCAPCD................................             N/A  2008 Ozone Certification       7/31/2018       8/31/2018
VCAPCD................................              10  Permits Required........       4/13/2004       7/19/2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 10, 2004, CARB's July 19, 2004 submittal of VCAPCD's Rule
10 was deemed to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On September 6,
2018, CARB's August 31, 2018 submittal of AVAQMD's and VCAPCD's 2008
Certification letters were also deemed to meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.

B. What is the purpose of the submitted certification letters?

    The submittal from each District is intended to satisfy the SIP
Requirement Rule that requires states to make a SIP revision addressing
NNSR and the FFS Rule that requires each District to make a SIP
submittal by September 6, 2018. The SIP for each District currently
contains approved NNSR permit programs based on their nonattainment
classification for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The submitted
certification letters provide a mechanism for each District to satisfy
the 40 CFR 51.1114 submittal requirements based on their 2008 8-hr
ozone nonattainment designations. EPA's analysis of how these SIP
revisions address the NNSR requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is provided below.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted permit rule?

    The submittal of Rule 10 by the VCAPCD is intended to clarify the
expiration date of a Part 70 permit. The District revised Section 3 of
Rule 10, pertaining to the expiration of a ``Permit to Operate'' to
clarify that a Part 70 permit does not expire annually. This revision
clarifies that a Part 70 permit expires only if not renewed in
accordance with the requirements of VCAPCD's Rule 30, ``Permit
Renewal''.

III. Analysis of Nonattainment New Source Review Requirements

    The minimum SIP requirements for NNSR permitting programs for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS are contained in 40 CFR 51.165. These NNSR
program requirements include those promulgated in the ``Phase 2 Rule''
implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS \5\ and the SIP Requirements
Rule implementing the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the Phase 2 Rule,
the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area must contain NNSR provisions
that: (1) Set major source thresholds for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) pursuant to 40
CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1)(i)-(iv) and (2); (2) classify physical
changes at a major source if the change would constitute a major source
by itself pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(3); (3) consider any
significant net emissions increase of NOX as a significant
net emissions increase for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(E);
(4) consider any increase of VOC emissions in extreme ozone
nonattainment areas as significant net emissions increases and major
modifications for ozone pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(v)(F); (5) set
significant emissions rates for VOC and NOX as ozone
precursors pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A)-(C) and (E); (6)
contain provisions for emissions reductions credits pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)-(2); (7) provide that the requirements
applicable to VOC also apply to NOX pursuant to 40 CFR
51.165(a)(8); and (8) set offset ratios for VOC and NOX
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(9)(ii)-(iv). Under the SIP Requirements
Rule, the SIP for each ozone nonattainment area designated
nonattainment for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and designated
nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS as of April 6, 2015, must also
contain NNSR provisions that include the anti-backsliding requirements
at 40 CFR 51.1105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).

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

A. Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD)

    The AVAQMD's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program,\6\ established
in Regulation XIII, ``New Source Review,'' of the AVAQMD's Rules and
Regulations, applies to the construction and modification of stationary
sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment areas
under its jurisdiction. In addition, the District has submitted
revisions to their NSR program that update and clarify certain
provisions.\7\ The AVAQMD's submitted SIP revision includes a
demonstration, consisting of a table listing each of the Phase 2 Rule
and SIP Requirements Rule NNSR program requirements, and a citation to
the specific provision of the SIP-approved or SIP-submitted rule
satisfying the requirement. The submittal also includes a certification
by the AVAQMD that the cited rules meet the federal NNSR requirements
for the applicable ozone nonattainment designation. These documents are
available in the docket for this action. EPA has reviewed the
demonstration and cited program elements intended to meet the federal
NNSR requirements and is proposing to approve the AVAQMD's submittal
because the current SIP-approved or SIP-submitted NSR program contains
all the Phase 2 Rule and SIP Requirements Rule NNSR program
requirements for a severe ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996).
    \7\ New Rule 1305--Emission Offsets was submitted to the EPA by
CARB on October 30, 2001 and rule revisions were submitted on
December 29, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)

    The VCAPCD's longstanding SIP-approved NNSR program,\8\ established
in Rules 26-26.11, applies to the construction and modification of
stationary sources, including major stationary sources in nonattainment
areas under its jurisdiction. The VCAPCD's submitted SIP revision
includes a demonstration, consisting of a table listing each of the
Phase 2 Rule and SIP Requirements Rule NNSR program requirements, and a
citation to the specific provision of the rule satisfying the
requirement. The submittal also includes a certification by the VCAPCD
that the cited rules meet the federal NNSR requirements for the
applicable ozone nonattainment designation. These documents are
available in the docket for this action. The EPA has reviewed the
demonstration and cited program elements intended to meet the federal
NNSR requirements and is proposing to approve the VCAPCD's submittal
because the current SIP-approved NSR program contains all the Phase 2
Rule and SIP Requirements Rule NNSR program requirements for a serious
ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 65 FR 76567 (December 7, 2000), 68 FR 9561 (February 28,
2003), 75 FR 1284 (January 11, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has determined that the revision to Rule 10 provides
clarity pertaining to the expiration of permits issued by the District.
Therefore, we find this revision acceptable for incorporation into the
SIP by reference.

IV. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    The EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions addressing the NNSR
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the AVAQMD and VCAPCD,
as well as VCAPCD Rule 10. In support of this proposed action, we have
concluded that our approval would comply with section 110(l) of the Act
because the submittals will not interfere with continued attainment of
the NAAQS in each District. The EPA has concluded that the State's
submission fulfills the 40 CFR 51.1114 revision requirement and meets
the requirements of CAA section 110 and the minimum SIP requirements of
40 CFR 51.165. The intended effect of our proposed action is to approve
the submitted certifications as meeting the applicable Phase 2 Rule
requirements. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action would
incorporate these certifications and Rule 10 into the federally-
enforceable SIP and be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220
(Identification of plan--in part).
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until
September 23, 2019.
    In addition, the FFS Rule issued by the EPA on February 3, 2017,
started an 18-month sanctions clock and a 24-month FIP clock.\9\ The
18-month sanctions clock was stopped upon receipt of California's SIP
revisions and our determination that the submittals were complete. We
determined the submittals for AVAQMD and VCAPCD were complete on
September 6, 2018. The 24-month FIP clock will stop upon the effective
date of our final approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 82 FR 9158, (February 3, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the 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 the VCAPCD rule listed in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make, this material available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, The EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the 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, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 6, 2019.
Michael Stoker,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-17804 Filed 8-21-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 251 (Thursday, December 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 86914]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28970]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Number: PR21-11-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b),(e)/: COH Rates effective
Nov 25 2020 to be effective 11/25/2020 Filing Type: 980.
    Filed Date: 12/22/20.
    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>73.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/2021.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-326-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--SWN Energy
Services Company, LLC SP102504 to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/22/20.
    Accession Number: 20201222-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-327-000.
    Applicants: Enable Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing--
January 1, 2021 SWEPCO 1006349 to be effective 1/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 12/22/20.
    Accession Number: 20201222-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/4/21.

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

    Dated: December 23, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-28970 Filed 12-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Sec.  192.935 and periodically evaluate the integrity of each covered
pipeline segment in accordance with Sec.  192.937. Beginning February
26, 2024, the risk assessment must:
    (1) Analyze how a potential failure could affect high consequence
areas;
    (2) Analyze the likelihood of failure due to each individual threat
and each unique combination of threats that interact or simultaneously
contribute to risk at a common location;
    (3) Account for, and compensate for, uncertainties in the model and
the data used in the risk assessment; and
    (4) Evaluate the potential risk reduction associated with candidate
risk reduction activities, such as preventive and mitigative measures,
and reduced anomaly remediation and assessment intervals.
    (5) In conjunction with Sec.  192.917(b), an operator may request
an extension of up to 1 year for the requirements of this paragraph by
submitting a notification to PHMSA at least 90 days before February 26,
2024, in accordance with Sec.  192.18. The notification must include a
reasonable and technically justified basis, an up-to-date plan for
completing all actions required by this paragraph (c)(5), the reason
for the requested extension, current safety or mitigation status of the
pipeline segment, the proposed completion date, and any needed
temporary safety measures to mitigate the impact on safety.
    (d) Plastic transmission pipeline. An operator of a plastic
transmission pipeline must assess the threats to each covered segment
using the information in sections 4 and 5 of ASME B31.8S and consider
any threats unique to the integrity of plastic pipe, such as poor joint
fusion practices, pipe with poor slow crack growth (SCG) resistance,
brittle pipe, circumferential cracking, hydrocarbon softening of the
pipe, internal and external loads, longitudinal or lateral loads,
proximity to elevated heat sources, and point loading.
* * * * *

0
20. In Sec.  192.923, paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  192.923   How is direct assessment used and for what threats?

* * * * *

    (b) * * *
    (2) Section 192.927 and NACE SP0206 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  192.7), if addressing internal corrosion (IC).
    (3) Section 192.929 and NACE SP0204 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  192.7), if addressing stress corrosion cracking (SCC).
* * * * *

0
21. In Sec.  192.927, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  192.927   What are the requirements for using Internal Corrosion
Direct Assessment (ICDA)?

* * * * *
    (b) General requirements. An operator using direct assessment as an
assessment method to address internal corrosion in a covered pipeline
segment must follow the requirements in this section and in NACE SP0206
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7). The Dry Gas Internal
Corrosion Direct Assessment (DG-ICDA) process described in this section
applies only for a segment of pipe transporting normally dry natural
gas (see Sec.  192.3) and not for a segment with electrolytes normally
present in the gas stream. If an operator uses ICDA to assess a covered
segment operating with electrolytes present in the gas stream, the
operator must develop a plan that demonstrates how it will conduct ICDA
in the segment to address internal corrosion effectively and must
notify PHMSA in accordance with Sec.  192.18. In the event of a
conflict between this section and NACE SP0206, the requirements in this
section control.
    (c) The ICDA plan. An operator must develop and follow an ICDA plan
that meets NACE SP0206 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7) and
that implements all four steps of the DG-ICDA process, including pre-
assessment, indirect inspection, detailed examination at excavation
locations, and post-assessment evaluation and monitoring. The plan must
identify the locations of all ICDA regions within covered segments in
the transmission system. An ICDA region is a continuous length of pipe
(including weld joints), uninterrupted by any significant change in
water or flow characteristics, that includes similar physical
characteristics or operating history. An ICDA region extends from the
location where liquid may first enter the pipeline and encompasses the
entire area along the pipeline where internal corrosion may occur until
a new input introduces the possibility of water entering the pipeline.
In cases where a single covered segment is partially located in two or
more ICDA regions, the four-step ICDA process must be completed for
each ICDA region in which the covered segment is partially located to
complete the assessment of the covered segment.
    (1) Preassessment. An operator must comply with NACE SP0206
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7) in conducting the
preassessment step of the ICDA process.
    (2) Indirect inspection. An operator must comply with NACE SP0206
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7), and the following
additional requirements, in conducting the Indirect Inspection step of
the ICDA process. An operator must explicitly document the results of
its feasibility assessment as required by NACE SP0206, section 3.3
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7); if any condition that
precludes the successful application of ICDA applies, then ICDA may not
be used, and another assessment method must be selected. When
performing the indirect inspection, the operator must use actual
pipeline-specific data, exclusively. The use of assumed pipeline or
operational data is prohibited. When calculating the critical
inclination angle of liquid holdup and the inclination profile of the
pipeline, the operator must consider the accuracy, reliability, and
uncertainty of the data used to make those calculations, including, but
not limited to, gas flow velocity (including during upset conditions),
pipeline elevation profile survey data (including specific profile at
features with inclinations such as road crossings, river crossings,
drains, valves, drips, etc.), topographical data, and depth of cover.
An operator must select locations for direct examination and establish
the extent of pipe exposure needed (i.e., the size of the bell hole),
to account for these uncertainties and their cumulative effect on the
precise location of predicted liquid dropout.
    (3) Detailed examination. An operator must comply with NACE SP0206
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7) in conducting the detailed
examination step of the ICDA process. When an operator first uses ICDA
for a covered segment, an operator must identify a minimum of two
locations for excavation within each covered segment associated with
the ICDA region and must perform a detailed examination for internal
corrosion at each location using ultrasonic thickness measurements,
radiography, or other generally accepted measurement techniques that
can examine for internal corrosion or other threats that are being
assessed. One location must be the low point (e.g., sag, drip, valve,
manifold, dead-leg) within the covered segment nearest to the beginning
of the ICDA region. The second location must be further downstream,
within the covered segment, near the end of the ICDA region. Whenever
corrosion is found during ICDA at any location, the operator must:
    (i) Evaluate the severity of the defect (remaining strength) and
remediate the defect in accordance with Sec.  192.933 if the condition
is in a covered segment, or in accordance with Sec. Sec.  192.485 and
192.714 if the condition is not in a covered segment;
    (ii) Expand the detailed examination program to determine all
locations that have internal corrosion within the ICDA region, and
accurately characterize the nature, extent, and root cause of the
internal corrosion. In cases where the internal corrosion was
identified within the ICDA region but outside the covered segment, the
expanded detailed examination program must also include at least two
detailed examinations within each covered segment associated with the
ICDA region, at the location within the covered segment(s) most likely
to have internal corrosion. One location must be the low point (e.g.,
sags, drips, valves, manifolds, dead-legs, traps) within the covered
segment nearest to the beginning of the ICDA region. The second
location must be further downstream, within the covered segment. In
instances of first use of ICDA for a covered segment, where these
locations have already been examined in accordance with paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, two additional detailed examinations must be
conducted within the covered segment; and
    (iii) Expand the detailed examination program to evaluate the
potential for internal corrosion in all pipeline segments (both covered
and non-covered) in the operator's pipeline system with similar
characteristics to the ICDA region in which the corrosion was found and
remediate identified instances of internal corrosion in accordance with
either Sec.  192.933 or Sec. Sec.  192.485 and 192.714, as appropriate.
    (4) Post-assessment evaluation and monitoring. An operator must
comply with NACE SP0206 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7) in
performing the post assessment step of the ICDA process. In addition to
NACE SP0206, the evaluation and monitoring process must also include--
    (i) An evaluation of the effectiveness of ICDA as an assessment
method for addressing internal corrosion and determining whether a
covered segment should be reassessed at more frequent intervals than
those specified in Sec.  192.939. An operator must carry out this
evaluation within 1 year of conducting an ICDA;

    (ii) Validation of the flow modeling calculations by comparison of
actual locations of discovered internal corrosion with locations
predicted by the model (if the flow model cannot be validated, then
ICDA is not feasible for the segment); and
    (iii) Continuous monitoring of each ICDA region that contains a
covered segment where internal corrosion has been identified by using
techniques such as coupons or ultrasonic (UT) sensors or electronic
probes, and by periodically drawing off liquids at low points and
chemically analyzing the liquids for the presence of corrosion
products. An operator must base the frequency of the monitoring and
liquid analysis on results from all integrity assessments that have
been conducted in accordance with the requirements of this subpart and
risk factors specific to the ICDA region.
    At a minimum, the monitoring frequency must be two times each
calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 7\1/2\ months. If an
operator finds any evidence of corrosion products in the ICDA region,
the operator must take prompt action in accordance with one of the two
following required actions, and remediate the conditions the operator
finds in accordance with Sec.  192.933 or Sec. Sec.  192.485 and
192.714, as applicable.
    (A) Conduct excavations of, and detailed examinations at, locations
downstream from where the electrolytes might have entered the pipe to
investigate and accurately characterize the nature, extent, and root
cause of the corrosion, including the monitoring and mitigation
requirements of Sec.  192.478; or
    (B) Assess the covered segment using another integrity assessment
method allowed by this subpart.
    (5) Other requirements. The ICDA plan must also include the
following:
    (i) Criteria an operator will apply in making key decisions
(including, but not limited to, ICDA feasibility, definition of ICDA
regions and sub-regions, and conditions requiring excavation) in
implementing each stage of the ICDA process; and
    (ii) Provisions that the analysis be carried out on the entire
pipeline in which covered segments are present, except that application
of the remediation criteria of Sec.  192.933 may be limited to covered
segments.

0
22. Section 192.929 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.929   What are the requirements for using Direct Assessment
for Stress Corrosion Cracking?

    (a) Definition. A Stress Corrosion Cracking Direct Assessment
(SCCDA) is a process to assess a covered pipeline segment for the
presence of stress corrosion cracking (SCC) by systematically gathering
and analyzing excavation data from pipe having similar operational
characteristics and residing in a similar physical environment.
    (b) General requirements. An operator using direct assessment as an
integrity assessment method for addressing SCC in a covered pipeline
segment must develop and follow an SCCDA plan that meets NACE SP0204
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7) and that implements all
four steps of the SCCDA process, including pre-assessment, indirect
inspection, detailed examination at excavation locations, and post-
assessment evaluation and monitoring. As specified in NACE SP0204,
SCCDA is complementary with other inspection methods for SCC, such as
in-line inspection or hydrostatic testing with a spike test, and it is
not necessarily an alternative or replacement for these methods in all
instances. Additionally, the plan must provide for--
    (1) Data gathering and integration. An operator's plan must provide
for a systematic process to collect and evaluate data for all covered
pipeline segments to identify whether the conditions for SCC are
present and to prioritize the covered pipeline segments for assessment
in accordance with NACE SP0204, sections 3 and 4, and Table 1
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7). This process must also
include gathering and evaluating data related to SCC at all sites an
operator excavates while conducting its pipeline operations (both
within and outside covered segments) where the criteria in NACE SP0204
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7) indicate the potential for
SCC. This data gathering process must be conducted in accordance with
NACE SP0204, section 5.3 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7),
and must include, at a minimum, all data listed in NACE SP0204, Table 2
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7). Further, the following
factors must be analyzed as part of this evaluation:
    (i) The effects of a carbonate-bicarbonate environment, including
the implications of any factors that promote the production of a
carbonate-bicarbonate environment, such as soil temperature, moisture,
the presence or generation of carbon dioxide, or cathodic protection
(CP);
    (ii) The effects of cyclic loading conditions on the susceptibility
and propagation of SCC in both high-pH and near-neutral-pH
environments;
    (iii) The effects of variations in applied CP, such as
overprotection, CP loss for extended periods, and high negative
potentials;
    (iv) The effects of coatings that shield CP when disbonded from the
pipe; and
    (v) Other factors that affect the mechanistic properties associated
with SCC, including, but not limited to, historical and present-day
operating pressures, high tensile residual stresses, flowing product
temperatures, and the presence of sulfides.
    (2) Indirect inspection. In addition to NACE SP0204, the plan's
procedures for indirect inspection must include provisions for
conducting at least two above ground surveys using the complementary
measurement tools most appropriate for the pipeline segment based on an
evaluation of integrated data.
    (3) Direct examination. In addition to NACE SP0204, the plan's
procedures for direct examination must provide for an operator
conducting a minimum of three direct examinations for SCC within the
covered pipeline segment spaced at the locations determined to be the
most likely for SCC to occur.
    (4) Remediation and mitigation. If SCC is discovered in a covered
pipeline segment, an operator must mitigate the threat in accordance
with one of the following applicable methods:
    (i) Removing the pipe with SCC; remediating the pipe with a Type B
sleeve; performing hydrostatic testing in accordance with paragraph
(b)(4)(ii) of this section; or by grinding out the SCC defect and
repairing the pipe. If an operator uses grinding for repair, the
operator must also perform the following as a part of the repair
procedure: nondestructive testing for any remaining cracks or other
defects; a measurement of the remaining wall thickness; and a
determination of the remaining strength of the pipe at the repair
location that is performed in accordance with Sec.  192.712 and that
meets the design requirements of Sec. Sec.  192.111 and 192.112, as
applicable. The pipe and material properties an operator uses in
remaining strength calculations must be documented in traceable,
verifiable, and complete records. If such records are not available, an
operator must base the pipe and material properties used in the
remaining strength calculations on properties determined and documented
in accordance with Sec.  192.607, if applicable.
    (ii) Performing a spike pressure test in accordance with Sec.
192.506 based upon the class location of the pipeline segment. The MAOP
must be no greater than the test pressure specified in

Sec.  192.506(a) divided by: 1.39 for Class 1 locations and Class 2
locations that contain Class 1 pipe that has been uprated in accordance
with Sec.  192.611; and 1.50 for all other Class 2 locations and all
Class 3 and Class 4 locations. An operator must repair any test
failures due to SCC by replacing the pipe segment and re-testing the
segment until the pipe passes the test without failures (such as pipe
seam or gasket leaks, or a pipe rupture). At a minimum, an operator
must repair pipe segments that pass the pressure test but have SCC
present by grinding the segment in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i)
of this section.
    (5) Post assessment. An operator's procedures for post-assessment,
in addition to the procedures listed in NACE SP0204, sections 6.3,
``periodic reassessment,'' and 6.4, ``effectiveness of SCCDA,'' must
include the development of a reassessment plan based on the
susceptibility of the operator's pipe to SCC as well as the mechanistic
behavior of identified cracking. An operator's reassessment intervals
must comply with Sec.  192.939. The plan must include the following
factors, in addition to any factors the operator determines
appropriate:
    (i) The evaluation of discovered crack clusters during the direct
examination step in accordance with NACE SP0204, sections <IP_ADDRESS>, 5.4,
and 5.5 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7);
    (ii) Conditions conducive to the creation of a carbonate-
bicarbonate environment;
    (iii) Conditions in the application (or loss) of CP that can create
or exacerbate SCC;
    (iv) Operating temperature and pressure conditions, including
operating stress levels on the pipe;
    (v) Cyclic loading conditions;
    (vi) Mechanistic conditions that influence crack initiation and
growth rates;
    (vii) The effects of interacting crack clusters;
    (viii) The presence of sulfides; and
    (ix) Disbonded coatings that shield CP from the pipe.

0
23. In Sec.  192.933, paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(1), (b),
and (d) are revised and paragraph (e) is added read as follows:

Sec.  192.933   What actions must be taken to address integrity issues?

    (a) General requirements. An operator must take prompt action to
address all anomalous conditions the operator discovers through the
integrity assessment. In addressing all conditions, an operator must
evaluate all anomalous conditions and remediate those that could reduce
a pipeline's integrity. An operator must be able to demonstrate that
the remediation of the condition will ensure the condition is unlikely
to pose a threat to the integrity of the pipeline until the next
reassessment of the covered segment. Repairs performed in accordance
with this section must use pipe and material properties that are
documented in traceable, verifiable, and complete records. If
documented data required for any analysis is not available, an operator
must obtain the undocumented data through Sec.  192.607.
    (1) Temporary pressure reduction. (i) If an operator is unable to
respond within the time limits for certain conditions specified in this
section, the operator must temporarily reduce the operating pressure of
the pipeline or take other action that ensures the safety of the
covered segment. An operator must reduce the operating pressure to one
of the following:
    (A) A level not exceeding 80 percent of the operating pressure at
the time the condition was discovered;
    (B) A level not exceeding the predicted failure pressure times the
design factor for the class location in which the affected pipeline is
located; or
    (C) A level not exceeding the predicted failure pressure divided by
1.1.
    (ii) An operator must determine the predicted failure pressure in
accordance with Sec.  192.712. An operator must notify PHMSA in
accordance with Sec.  192.18 if it cannot meet the schedule for
evaluation and remediation required under paragraph (c) or (d) of this
section and cannot provide safety through a temporary reduction in
operating pressure or other action. The operator must document and keep
records of the calculations and decisions used to determine the reduced
operating pressure, and the implementation of the actual reduced
operating pressure, for a period of 5 years after the pipeline has been
remediated.
* * * * *
    (b) Discovery of condition. Discovery of a condition occurs when an
operator has adequate information about a condition to determine that
the condition presents a potential threat to the integrity of the
pipeline. For the purposes of this section, a condition that presents a
potential threat includes, but is not limited to, those conditions that
require remediation or monitoring listed under paragraphs (d)(1)
through (3) of this section. An operator must promptly, but no later
than 180 days after conducting an integrity assessment, obtain
sufficient information about a condition to make that determination,
unless the operator demonstrates that the 180-day period is
impracticable. In cases where a determination is not made within the
180-day period, the operator must notify PHMSA, in accordance with
Sec.  192.18, and provide an expected date when adequate information
will become available. Notification to PHMSA does not alleviate an
operator from the discovery requirements of this paragraph (b).
* * * * *
    (d) Special requirements for scheduling remediation--(1) Immediate
repair conditions. An operator's evaluation and remediation schedule
must follow ASME/ANSI B31.8S, section 7 (incorporated by reference, see
Sec.  192.7) in providing for immediate repair conditions. To maintain
safety, an operator must temporarily reduce operating pressure in
accordance with paragraph (a) of this section or shut down the pipeline
until the operator completes the repair of these conditions. An
operator must treat the following conditions as immediate repair
conditions:
    (i) A metal loss anomaly where a calculation of the remaining
strength of the pipe shows a predicted failure pressure determined in
accordance with Sec.  192.712(b) less than or equal to 1.1 times the
MAOP at the location of the anomaly.
    (ii) A dent located between the 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock positions
(upper \2/3\ of the pipe) that has metal loss, cracking, or a stress
riser, unless engineering analyses performed in accordance with Sec.
192.712(c) demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (iii) Metal loss greater than 80 percent of nominal wall regardless
of dimensions.
    (iv) Metal loss preferentially affecting a detected longitudinal
seam, if that seam was formed by direct current, low-frequency or high-
frequency electric resistance welding, electric flash welding, or with
a longitudinal joint factor less than 1.0, and where the predicted
failure pressure determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(d) is less
than 1.25 times the MAOP.
    (v) A crack or crack-like anomaly meeting any of the following
criteria:
    (A) Crack depth plus any metal loss is greater than 50 percent of
pipe wall thickness;
    (B) Crack depth plus any metal loss is greater than the inspection
tool's maximum measurable depth; or
    (C) The crack or crack-like anomaly has a predicted failure
pressure,

determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(d), that is less than 1.25
times the MAOP.
    (vi) An indication or anomaly that, in the judgment of the person
designated by the operator to evaluate the assessment results, requires
immediate action.
    (2) One-year conditions. Except for conditions listed in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (3) of this section, an operator must remediate any of the
following within 1 year of discovery of the condition:
    (i) A smooth dent located between the 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock
positions (upper \2/3\ of the pipe) with a depth greater than 6 percent
of the pipeline diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for a
pipeline diameter less than Nominal Pipe Size (NPS) 12), unless
engineering analyses performed in accordance with Sec.  192.712(c)
demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (ii) A dent with a depth greater than 2 percent of the pipeline
diameter (0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS
12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or at a longitudinal or
helical (spiral) seam weld, unless engineering analyses performed in
accordance with Sec.  192.712(c) demonstrate critical strain levels are
not exceeded.
    (iii) A dent located between the 4 o'clock and 8 o'clock positions
(lower \1/3\ of the pipe) that has metal loss, cracking, or a stress
riser, unless engineering analyses performed in accordance with Sec.
192.712(c) demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (iv) Metal loss anomalies where a calculation of the remaining
strength of the pipe at the location of the anomaly shows a predicted
failure pressure, determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(b), less
than 1.39 times the MAOP for Class 2 locations, and less than 1.50
times the MAOP for Class 3 and 4 locations. For metal loss anomalies in
Class 1 locations with a predicted failure pressure greater than 1.1
times MAOP, an operator must follow the remediation schedule specified
in ASME/ANSI B31.8S (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  192.7),
section 7, Figure 4, in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (v) Metal loss that is located at a crossing of another pipeline,
or is in an area with widespread circumferential corrosion, or could
affect a girth weld, that has a predicted failure pressure, determined
in accordance with Sec.  192.712(b), of less than 1.39 times the MAOP
for Class 1 locations or where Class 2 locations contain Class 1 pipe
that has been uprated in accordance with Sec.  192.611, or less than
1.50 times the MAOP for all other Class 2 locations and all Class 3 and
4 locations.
    (vi) Metal loss preferentially affecting a detected longitudinal
seam, if that seam was formed by direct current, low-frequency or high-
frequency electric resistance welding, electric flash welding, or with
a longitudinal joint factor less than 1.0, and where the predicted
failure pressure, determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(d), is
less than 1.39 times the MAOP for Class 1 locations or where Class 2
locations contain Class 1 pipe that has been uprated in accordance with
Sec.  192.611, or less than 1.50 times the MAOP for all other Class 2
locations and all Class 3 and 4 locations.
    (vii) A crack or crack-like anomaly that has a predicted failure
pressure, determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(d), that is less
than 1.39 times the MAOP for Class 1 locations or where Class 2
locations contain Class 1 pipe that has been uprated in accordance with
Sec.  192.611, or less than 1.50 times the MAOP for all other Class 2
locations and all Class 3 and 4 locations.
    (3) Monitored conditions. An operator is not required by this
section to schedule remediation of the following less severe conditions
but must record and monitor the conditions during subsequent risk
assessments and integrity assessments for any change that may require
remediation. Monitored indications are the least severe and do not
require an operator to examine and evaluate them until the next
scheduled integrity assessment interval, but if an anomaly is expected
to grow to dimensions or have a predicted failure pressure (with a
safety factor) meeting a 1-year condition prior to the next scheduled
assessment, then the operator must repair the condition:
    (i) A dent with a depth greater than 6 percent of the pipeline
diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter
less than NPS 12), located between the 4 o'clock position and the 8
o'clock position (bottom \1/3\ of the pipe), and for which engineering
analyses of the dent, performed in accordance with Sec.  192.712(c),
demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (ii) A dent located between the 8 o'clock and 4 o'clock positions
(upper \2/3\ of the pipe) with a depth greater than 6 percent of the
pipeline diameter (greater than 0.50 inches in depth for a pipeline
diameter less than NPS 12), and for which engineering analyses of the
dent, performed in accordance with Sec.  192.712(c), demonstrate
critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (iii) A dent with a depth greater than 2 percent of the pipeline
diameter (0.250 inches in depth for a pipeline diameter less than NPS
12) that affects pipe curvature at a girth weld or longitudinal or
helical (spiral) seam weld, and for which engineering analyses,
performed in accordance with Sec.  192.712(c), of the dent and girth or
seam weld demonstrate that critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (iv) A dent that has metal loss, cracking, or a stress riser, and
where engineering analyses performed in accordance with Sec.
192.712(c) demonstrate critical strain levels are not exceeded.
    (v) Metal loss preferentially affecting a detected longitudinal
seam, if that seam was formed by direct current, low-frequency or high-
frequency electric resistance welding, electric flash welding, or with
a longitudinal joint factor less than 1.0, and where the predicted
failure pressure, determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(d), is
greater than or equal to 1.39 times the MAOP for Class 1 locations or
where Class 2 locations contain Class 1 pipe that has been uprated in
accordance with Sec.  192.611, or greater than or equal to 1.50 times
the MAOP for all other Class 2 locations and all Class 3 and 4
locations.
    (vi) A crack or crack-like anomaly for which the predicted failure
pressure, determined in accordance with Sec.  192.712(d), is greater
than or equal to 1.39 times the MAOP for Class 1 locations or where
Class 2 locations contain Class 1 pipe that has been uprated in
accordance with Sec.  192.611, or greater than or equal to 1.50 times
the MAOP for all other Class 2 locations and all Class 3 and 4
locations.
    (e) In situ direct examination of crack defects. Whenever an
operator finds conditions that require the pipeline to be repaired, in
accordance with this section, an operator must perform a direct
examination of known locations of cracks or crack-like defects using
technology that has been validated to detect tight cracks (equal to or
less than 0.008 inches crack opening), such as inverse wave field
extrapolation (IWEX), phased array ultrasonic testing (PAUT),
ultrasonic testing (UT), or equivalent technology. ``In situ''
examination tools and procedures for crack assessments (length, depth,
and volumetric) must have performance and evaluation standards,
including pipe or weld surface cleanliness standards for the
inspection, confirmed by subject matter experts qualified by knowledge,
training, and experience in direct examination inspection for accuracy
of the type of defects and pipe material being evaluated. The
procedures must account for inaccuracies in evaluations

and fracture mechanics models for failure pressure determinations.

0
24. In Sec.  192.935, paragraphs (a) and (d)(3) are revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  192.935  What additional preventive and mitigative measures must
an operator take?

    (a) General requirements. (1) An operator must take additional
measures beyond those already required by this part to prevent a
pipeline failure and to mitigate the consequences of a pipeline failure
in a high consequence area. Such additional measures must be based on
the risk analyses required by Sec.  192.917. Measures that operators
must consider in the analysis, if necessary, to prevent or mitigate the
consequences of a pipeline failure include, but are not limited to:
    (i) Correcting the root causes of past incidents to prevent
recurrence;
    (ii) Establishing and implementing adequate operations and
maintenance processes that could increase safety;
    (iii) Establishing and deploying adequate resources for the
successful execution of preventive and mitigative measures;
    (iv) Installing automatic shut-off valves or remote-control valves;
    (v) Installing pressure transmitters on both sides of automatic
shut-off valves and remote-control valves that communicate with the
pipeline control center;
    (vi) Installing computerized monitoring and leak detection systems;
    (vii) Replacing pipe segments with pipe of heavier wall thickness
or higher strength;
    (viii) Conducting additional right-of-way patrols;
    (ix) Conducting hydrostatic tests in areas where pipe material has
quality issues or lost records;
    (x) Testing to determine material mechanical and chemical
properties for unknown properties that are needed to assure integrity
or substantiate MAOP evaluations, including material property tests
from removed pipe that is representative of the in-service pipeline;
    (xi) Re-coating damaged, poorly performing, or disbonded coatings;
    (xii) Performing additional depth-of-cover surveys at roads,
streams, and rivers;
    (xiii) Remediating inadequate depth-of-cover;
    (xiv) Providing additional training to personnel on response
procedures and conducting drills with local emergency responders; and
    (xv) Implementing additional inspection and maintenance programs.
    (2) Operators must document the risk analysis, the preventive and
mitigative measures considered, and the basis for implementing or not
implementing any preventive and mitigative measures considered, in
accordance with Sec.  192.947(d).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) Perform instrumented leak surveys using leak detector equipment
at least twice each calendar year, at intervals not exceeding 7 \1/2\
months. For unprotected pipelines or cathodically protected pipe where
electrical surveys are impractical, instrumented leak surveys must be
performed at least four times each calendar year, at intervals not
exceeding 4 \1/2\ months. Electrical surveys are indirect assessments
that include close interval surveys, alternating current voltage
gradient surveys, direct current voltage gradient surveys, or their
equivalent.
* * * * *

0
25. In Sec.  192.941, paragraph (b)(1) and the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(2) are revised to read as follows:

Sec.  192.941  What is a low stress reassessment?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Cathodically protected pipe. To address the threat of external
corrosion on cathodically protected pipe in a covered segment, an
operator must perform an indirect assessment on the covered segment at
least once every 7 calendar years. The indirect assessment must be
conducted using one of the following means: indirect examination
method, such as a close interval survey; alternating current voltage
gradient survey; direct current voltage gradient survey; or the
equivalent of any of these methods. An operator must evaluate the
cathodic protection and corrosion threat for the covered segment and
include the results of each indirect assessment as part of the overall
evaluation. This evaluation must also include, at a minimum, the leak
repair and inspection records, corrosion monitoring records, exposed
pipe inspection records, and the pipeline environment.
    (2) Unprotected pipe or cathodically protected pipe where external
corrosion assessments are impractical. If an external corrosion
assessment is impractical on the covered segment an operator must--
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 3, 2022, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Tristan H. Brown,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-17031 Filed 8-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P