[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 56774]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4020-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

New York; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4020-DR), dated August 31, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 7, 2011.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of August 31, 2011.

    Schenectady and Orange Counties for Public Assistance, including
direct federal assistance (already designated for Individual
Assistance).

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

    September 7, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23409 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24050-24051]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11063]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1202; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-31]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace, Los Angeles, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E en route airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface to accommodate
instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft under control of the Los Angeles
Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC), Los Angeles, CA.
Establishment of this airspace area would ensure controlled airspace
exists in those areas where the Federal airway structure is inadequate.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 9, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2017-1202; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-31, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Clark, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish Class E en route airspace at Los Angeles Air
Route Traffic Control Center, Los Angeles, CA.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2017-1202/
Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-31.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198-6547.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Background

    Current airspace design is primarily based on airport terminal
areas and airways, often leaving small areas of uncontrolled airspace
between airports. Class E en route domestic airspace provides
controlled airspace in those areas where there is a requirement to
provide IFR en route air traffic control services but the Federal
airway structure is inadequate.
    Numerous smaller Class E en route areas have been established to
provide controlled airspace where the airway structure is inadequate;
however, additional areas of uncontrolled airspace have been discovered
due to technological improvements in locating and mapping. Also, as
aging ground-based navigation aids are removed from service, the airway
structure is reduced, uncovering larger areas of uncontrolled airspace.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to establish Class E en route airspace
extending upward from

1,200 feet above the surface at the Los Angeles ARTCC, Los Angeles, CA,
to support en route IFR operations where the airway structure is
inadequate. This proposal would allow the most efficient routing
between airports without reducing margins of safety or requiring
additional coordination and pilot/controller workload. This action is
necessary to ensure the safety and management of controlled airspace
within the National Airspace System as it transitions from ground based
navigation aids to satellite-based Global Navigation Satellite System
for navigation.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6006 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6006 Class E En Route Domestic Airspace Areas.

* * * * *

AWP CA E6 Los Angeles, CA [NEW]

That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface
within an area bounded by lat. 35[deg]17'00'' N, long.
121[deg]25'28'' W; to lat. 35[deg]32'00'' N, long. 120[deg]51'00''
W; to lat. 35[deg]37'00'' N, long. 120[deg]33'45'' W; to lat.
35[deg]38'30'' N, long. 120[deg]28'30'' W; to lat. 35[deg]41'58'' N,
long. 120[deg]17'17'' W; to lat. 35[deg]43'00'' N, long.
120[deg]13'55'' W; to lat. 35[deg]45'00'' N, long. 120[deg]07'00''
W; to lat. 35[deg]43'11'' N, long. 119[deg]55'03'' W; to lat.
35[deg]41'04'' N, long. 119[deg]42'46'' W; to lat. 35[deg]39'39'' N,
long. 119[deg]34'35'' W; to lat. 35[deg]38'43'' N, long.
119[deg]29'25'' W; to lat. 35[deg]49'40'' N, long. 119[deg]22'20''
W; to lat. 36[deg]04'30'' N, long. 119[deg]12'30'' W; to lat.
36[deg]08'00'' N, long. 119[deg]10'00'' W; to lat. 36[deg]08'00'' N,
long. 119[deg]02'20'' W; to lat. 36[deg]08'00'' N, long.
119[deg]00'00'' W; to lat. 36[deg]08'00'' N, long. 118[deg]35'00''
W; to lat. 36[deg]34'15'' N, long. 118[deg]35'00'' W; to lat.
36[deg]45'45'' N, long. 118[deg]35'00'' W; to lat. 37[deg]04'50'' N,
long. 118[deg]35'00'' W; to lat. 37[deg]12'00'' N, long.
118[deg]35'03'' W; to lat. 37[deg]12'00'' N, long. 118[deg]26'00''
W; to lat. 37[deg]12'00'' N, long. 118[deg]00'00'' W; to lat.
37[deg]12'00'' N, long. 117[deg]20'00'' W; to lat. 37[deg]22'00'' N,
long. 117[deg]00'30'' W; to lat. 37[deg]26'30'' N, long.
117[deg]04'33'' W; to lat. 37[deg]33'00'' N, long. 117[deg]05'41''
W; to lat. 37[deg]53'00'' N, long. 117[deg]05'41'' W; to lat.
37[deg]53'00'' N, long. 116[deg]50'00'' W; to lat. 37[deg]53'00'' N,
long. 116[deg]26'03'' W; to lat. 37[deg]53'00'' N, long.
116[deg]11'03'' W; to lat. 37[deg]59'59'' N, long. 114[deg]42'06''
W; to lat. 38[deg]01'00'' N, long. 114[deg]30'03'' W; to lat.
38[deg]01'00'' N, long. 114[deg]12'03'' W; to lat. 37[deg]53'44'' N,
long. 113[deg]42'03'' W; to lat. 37[deg]49'25'' N, long.
113[deg]42'01'' W; to lat. 37[deg]43'00'' N, long. 113[deg]47'00''
W; to lat. 37[deg]30'00'' N, long. 113[deg]00'00'' W; to lat.
37[deg]27'22'' N, long. 112[deg]25'19'' W; to lat. 37[deg]24'50'' N,
long. 111[deg]53'45'' W; to lat. 37[deg]24'45'' N, long.
111[deg]52'45'' W; to lat. 37[deg]00'18'' N, long. 111[deg]43'06''
W; to lat. 36[deg]44'00'' N, long. 111[deg]36'30'' W; to lat.
36[deg]30'54'' N, long. 111[deg]32'08'' W; to lat. 36[deg]25'15'' N,
long. 111[deg]30'15'' W; to lat. 35[deg]46'00'' N, long.
111[deg]50'30'' W; to lat. 35[deg]24'00'' N, long. 112[deg]00'00''
W; to lat. 35[deg]23'48'' N, long. 112[deg]09'11'' W; to lat.
35[deg]23'00'' N, long. 112[deg]40'00'' W; to lat. 35[deg]15'20'' N,
long. 112[deg]55'40'' W; to lat. 34[deg]55'00'' N, long.
113[deg]37'00'' W; to lat. 34[deg]52'00'' N, long. 113[deg]42'00''
W; to lat. 34[deg]40'00'' N, long. 114[deg]00'00'' W; to lat.
33[deg]24'00'' N, long. 114[deg]00'00'' W; to lat. 32[deg]41'00'' N,
long. 114[deg]00'00'' W; to lat. 32[deg]44'15'' N, long.
113[deg]41'05'' W; to lat. 32[deg]06'58'' N, long. 113[deg]30'46''
W; to lat. 32[deg]06'00'' N, long. 113[deg]30'30'' W; to lat.
32[deg]15'00'' N, long. 114[deg]00'00'' W; to lat. 32[deg]29'38'' N,
long. 114[deg]48'47'' W; to lat. 32[deg]43'07'' N, long.
114[deg]43'07'' W; to lat. 32[deg]38'30'' N, long. 115[deg]48'30''
W; to lat. 32[deg]32'03'' N, long. 117[deg]07'25'' W; to lat.
32[deg]24'00'' N, long. 117[deg]24'38'' W; to lat. 32[deg]35'07'' N,
long. 118[deg]29'51'' W; to lat. 33[deg]04'49'' N, long.
119[deg]44'49'' W; to lat. 33[deg]54'53'' N, long. 120[deg]40'02''
W; to lat. 34[deg]50'19'' N, long. 121[deg]10'09'' W., thence to the
point of beginning, excluding that airspace offshore beyond 12 miles
of the shore line.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on May 17, 2018.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-11063 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24776-24779]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09923]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72027; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rules 1064 and 1080

April 25, 2014.
    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 April 16, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rules 1064 and 1080 to more

specifically address the number and size of contra-parties to a
Qualified Contingent Cross Order (``QCC Order'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.

* * * * *

Rule 1064. Crossing, Facilitation and Solicited Orders

    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) A Floor Qualified Contingent Cross Order is comprised of an
originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000
contracts in the case of Mini Options, that is identified as being
part of a qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in
subsection (3) below, coupled with a contra-side order or orders
totaling [to buy or sell] an equal number of contracts.
    (1)-(3) No change.

Commentary

    .01-.04 No change.
* * * * *

Rule 1080. Phlx XL and Phlx XL II

    (a)-(n) No change.
    (o) Qualified Contingent Cross Order.
    A Qualified Contingent Cross Order is comprised of an
originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000
contracts in the case of Mini Options, that is identified as being
part of a qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in
subsection (3) below, coupled with a contra-side order or orders
totaling [to buy or sell] an equal number of contracts.
    (1)-(3) No change.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to expand the availability of QCC
orders by permitting multiple contra-parties on a QCC order. Under the
proposal, multiple contra-parties would be allowed on one side (the
contra-side), so long as they total the originating QCC Order, which
would be a single order from a single party for at least 1,000
contracts (in addition to meeting the other requirements of a QCC
Order).
    The Exchange currently permits two types of QCC Orders. Pursuant to
Rule 1064(e), A Floor Qualified Contingent Cross Order (``Floor QCC
Order'') is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1,000
contracts \3\ that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade,\4\ coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an
equal number of contracts. Floor QCC Orders are immediately executed
upon entry into the System by an Options Floor Broker provided that (i)
no Customer Orders are at the same price on the Exchange's limit order
book and (ii) the price is at or between the National Best Bid/Offer
(``NBBO''). Floor QCC Orders are submitted into the System by Floor
Brokers on the Floor via the Floor Broker Management System. Floor QCC
Orders are automatically rejected if they cannot be executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In the case of Mini Options, the minimum size is 10,000
contracts.
    \4\ A ``qualified contingent trade'' is a transaction consisting
of two or more component orders, executed as agent or principal,
where: (a) At least one component is an NMS Stock, as defined in
Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act; (b) all
components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (c) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (d) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (f) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to Floor QCC Orders, Phlx offers automated Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders (``Automated QCC Order''). Pursuant to Rule
1080(o), an Automated QCC Order is very similar to a Floor QCC Order,
in that it must be comprised of an order to buy or sell at least 1,000
contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified contingent
trade, coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number
of contracts. Automated QCC Orders shall only be submitted
electronically from off the Floor to the Phlx System. Automated QCC
Orders are immediately executed upon entry into the System by an Order
Entry Firm provided that (i) no Customer Orders are at the same price
on the Exchange's limit order book and (ii) the price is at or between
the NBBO. Automated QCC Orders will be automatically rejected if they
cannot be executed.
    Each definition of a QCC Order is currently framed in the singular
(* * * coupled with a contra-side order * * *), therefore, the Exchange
would like to amend its rule to permit its members and other
participants to submit a QCC Order consisting of a single order from a
single party for at least 1,000 contracts on the originating or agency
side and a single order or multiple orders on the opposite, contra-side
(generally known as the solicited side). Multiple contra-parties are
only permitted on one side, the contra-side, and are not permitted on
the originating side. Currently, the contra-side to a QCC Order is
entered into the Phlx system as a single order, even if that order
consists of multiple contra-parties who are allocated their portion in
a post-trade allocation. Therefore, the Exchange now proposes to modify
its rules to provide that a QCC Order must involve a single order for a
single party for at least 1,000 contracts on the originating side, but
that it may consist of a single or multiple orders on the opposite,
contra-side, so long as it totals the number of contracts on the
originating side.
    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to permit single or multiple
contra-side orders on a QCC Order with a total number of contracts
equaling the originating order size without any size restriction for
such contra-side orders. The Exchange believes that permitting multiple
contra-parties to QCC Orders that total the number of contracts on the
originating side may increase liquidity and, potentially, improve the
prices at which QCC Orders get executed. The ability for market
participants to provide liquidity in response to large sized orders is
directly proportional to the size and associated risk of the resulting
position. As a result, smaller sized trades are often done at a better
price than larger sized trades, which convey more risk. The ability to
pool together multiple market participants to participate on the
contra-side of a trade for any size has a direct and positive impact on
the ability of those market participants to provide the best price as
they compete to participate in the order without being compelled to
provide liquidity with a large minimum quantity. This concept is not
unique to large crosses. It is well understood and observed that any
product with multiple market participants providing liquidity offers
the tightest and most liquid market and the same applies to the larger
orders negotiated away from the exchanges.
    For instance, a 5,000 contract originating QCC Order to buy could,

under this proposal, be coupled with two orders to sell 2,500 contracts
each. Similarly, a 5,000 contract originating QCC Order to buy could,
under this proposal, be coupled with two contra-side orders to sell,
one for 4,500 contracts and one for 500 contracts. In the above
examples, the total of all sell (contra-side) orders equals the size of
the originating order and the originating order is for at least 1,000
contracts.
    An area of concern has been the protection of smaller orders, which
is why the QCC Order is limited to the 1,000 contract minimum. It is
important to note that the concern has always been and should continue
to be for the originating order or unsolicited part of the order that
is seeking liquidity and not the professional responders and providers
of liquidity. Allowing smaller orders to participate on the other side
(i.e., contra-side) of QCC Orders not only provides the best price and
opportunity for a trade to occur in a tight and liquid market, but
ensures that the highest possible number of liquidity providers are
able to participate. Accordingly, the proposal would benefit both sides
of a QCC trade by ensuring a trade at the best possible price without
favoring larger participants on the solicited side of the trade.
    Under this proposal, the QCC Order must continue to satisfy all
other requirements of a QCC Order under the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange will track and monitor QCC Orders to determine which
is the originating/agency side of the order and which is the contra-
side(s) of the order to ensure that Members are complying with the
minimum 1,000 contract size limitation on the originating/agency side
of the QCC Order. The Exchange will check to see if Members are
aggregating multiple orders to meet the 1,000 contract minimum on the
originating/agency side of the trade in violation of the requirements
of the rule. The rule requires that the originating/agency side of the
trade consist of one party who is submitting a QCC Order for at least
1,000 contracts. The Exchange represents that it will enforce
compliance with this portion of the rule by checking to see if a Member
breaks up the originating/agency side of the order in a post trade
allocation to different clearing firms, allocating less than 1,000
contracts to a party or multiple parties. For example, a Member enters
a QCC Order into the system for 1,500 contracts and receives an
execution. Subsequent to the execution, the Member allocates the
originating/agency side of the order to two different clearing firms on
a post trade allocation basis, thereby allocating 500 contracts to one
clearing firm and 1,000 contracts to another clearing firm. This type
of transaction would not meet the requirements of a QCC Order under the
current and proposed rule.
    With regard to order entry, a Member will have to mark the
originating/agency side as the first order in the system and the
contra-side(s) as the second. The Exchange will monitor order entries
to ensure that Members are properly entering QCC Orders into the
system.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed 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,
by amending the rule text to expand a QCC Order. Specifically, because
the proposal states that multiple parties are permitted on the contra-
side, it should provide members and participants with certainty as to
what is allowed and, therefore, provide more opportunity to participate
in QCC trades, consistent with the key principles behind the QCC Order.
Furthermore, because the proposal permits a single or multiple contra-
parties without any contract size requirement so long as they total the
originating size, it should also increase liquidity and improve the
prices at which QCC Orders get executed and, therefore, provide more
opportunity to participate in QCC trades, consistent with the key
principles behind the QCC Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In approving QCC Orders, the Commission has stated that ``. . .
qualified contingent trades are of benefit to the market as a whole and
a contribution to the efficient functioning of the securities markets
and the price discovery process.'' \7\ The Commission ``also has
recognized that contingent trades can be useful trading tools for
investors and other market participants, particularly those who trade
the securities of issuers involved in mergers, different classes of
shares of the same issuer, convertible securities, and equity
derivatives such as options [emphasis added].'' \8\ In light of these
benefits, the Exchange believes that the proposal should improve the
usefulness of the QCC Order without raising novel regulatory issues,
because the proposal does not impact the fundamental aspects of this
order type--it merely permits multiple contra-parties, regardless of
size, on the contra-side, while preserving the 1,000 contract minimum
on the originating order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ QCC Approval Order [sic] at text accompanying footnote 115.
    \8\ QCC Approval Order [sic] at Section III.A. citing Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 54389 (August 31, 2006), 71 FR 52829
(September 7, 2006) (Original QCT Exemption).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange seeks to
compete with other options exchanges for QCC Orders involving multiple
parties, including where there are multiple contra-parties. The
Exchange believes that this will be beneficial to participants because
allowing single or multiple contra-parties of any size on the contra-
side should foster competition for filling the contra-side of a QCC
Order and thereby result in potentially better prices.

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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, the proposal is
intended to relieve a burden on competition, which results from
different exchanges interpreting their rules differently. Among the
options exchanges, the Exchange believes that the proposal to allow, on
the contra-side, a single or multiple contra-parties without any
contract size restriction so long as they total the originating size
should foster competition for filling the contra-side of a QCC order
and thereby result in potentially better prices for such orders.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the

Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.196-4(f)(6).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, as it will help
eliminate investor confusion and promote competition among the option
exchanges.\14\ Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule
change to be operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, given the differing requirements as
between the originating side and contra-side for QCC Orders, it is
essential that the Exchange be able to clearly identify and monitor--
throughout the life of a QCC Order, beginning at time of order entry on
the Exchange through the post-trade allocation process--each side of
the QCC Order and ensure that the requirements of the order type are
being satisfied including, importantly, those relating to the
originating side. The Commission believes this to be critical so that
the Exchange can ensure that market participants are not able to
circumvent the requirements of the QCC Order (as amended by this
proposed rule change), each of which the Commission continues to
believe are critical to ensuring that the QCC Order is narrowly
drawn.\15\ Further, the Commission notes that the Exchange has made
certain representations regarding its enforcement and surveillance of
its Members' use of QCC Orders, including, for example, not only at the
time of order entry, but through the post-trade allocation process as
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Commission expects the Exchange to have the capability
to enable it to surveil that such requirements are being met. Though
the Exchange has stated its ability to do so, if the Exchange is not
able to have such monitoring at any point in time, the Commission
would expect the Exchange to take other steps to ensure that the QCC
Order cannot be improperly used. For example, if the Exchange were
not able to identify and monitor which side of a QCC Order is the
originating order, the Commission would expect that it would require
that both sides of the QCC Order meet the more stringent
requirements of the originating side, i.e., that it be for a single
order for at least 1,000 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-25 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-Phlx-2014-25. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2014-25, and should be
submitted on or before May 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09923 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 64753]
[DOCID:fr20oc10-102]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 425, OMB Control No. 3235-0521, SEC File No. 270-462.

    Notice is hereby given, that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for approval.
    Rule 425 (17 CFR 230.425) under the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77a et seq.) requires the filing of certain prospectuses and
communications under Rule 135 (17 CFR 230.135) and Rule 165 (17 CFR
230.165) in connection with business combination transactions. The
purpose of the rule is to permit more oral and written communications
with shareholders about tender offers, mergers and other business
combination transactions on a more timely basis, so long as the written
communications are filed on the date of first use. Approximately 1,680
issuers file communications under Rule 425 at an estimated 0.25 hours
per response for a total of 420 annual burden hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Jeffrey Heslop, Acting
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-
Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26344 Filed 10-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27076-27077]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-1236; Airspace Docket No. 08-AGL-16]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Waverly, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Waverly, OH. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Pike County Airport,
Waverly, OH. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at Pike County
Airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, August 27, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817)
321-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 12, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Waverly, OH,
adding additional controlled airspace at Pike County Airport, Waverly,
OH. (74 FR 10690, Docket No. FAA-2009-1236). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E
airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9S signed October 3, 2008 and effective October 31, 2008, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Waverly, OH, adding additional
controlled airspace at Pike County Airport, Waverly, OH, for the safety
and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it adds additional controlled airspace at Pike County Airport,
Waverly, OH.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR Part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008 and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Waverly, OH [Amended]

Pike County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]10'01'' N., long. 82[deg]55'41'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 9.9-mile radius of Pike County Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 18, 2009.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-13182 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 23516]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08986]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC20-54-000.
    Applicants: Mankato Energy Center, LLC, SWG Minnesota Holdings,
LLC, Mankato Energy Center II, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Mankato Energy Center, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5246.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG20-129-000.
    Applicants: Bighorn Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Bighorn Solar 1, LLC, Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 4/22/20.
    Accession Number: 20200422-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/13/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2224-002.
    Applicants: Turtle Creek Wind Farm LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Turtle Creek Wind Farm LLC, Docket
No. ER19-2224-002 to be effective 9/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1626-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Sch. 20A Service Agmt with
Brookfield Renewable Trading and Marketing LP to be effective 9/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5168.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1627-000.
    Applicants: Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of Open Access Transmission
Tariff, et al of Basin Electric Power Cooperative.
    Filed Date: 4/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200421-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/12/20.

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

    Dated: April 22, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08986 Filed 4-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 66035-66036]
[DOCID:fr06no08-34]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0264; FRL-8739-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the
Production, Import, Recycling, Destruction, Transhipment, and Feedstock
Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances (Renewal); EPA ICR No. 1432.29, OMB
Control No. 2060-0170

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an
existing approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below,
describes the nature of the information collection and its estimated
burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 8,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0264, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0264, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten Cappel, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205J),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2338; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also
visit the Ozone Depletion Web site of EPA's Stratospheric Protection
Division at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 29, 2008 (73 FR 30917) EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received only one comment during the
comment period, which is addressed in the ICR. Any additional comments
on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this
notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0264, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for Air and Radiation
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, confidential business information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production,
Import, Recycling, Destruction, Transhipment, and Feedstock Use of
Ozone-Depleting Substances (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1432.29, OMB Control No. 2060-0170.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on December
31, 2008. Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or
sponsor the collection of information while this submission is pending
at OMB. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA is seeking to renew this ICR, which authorizes the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements established in the regulations
stated in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A and as required by the United
States' commitments under the international treaty The Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol). This
information collection allows EPA to monitor the United States'
compliance with the Protocol and Title VI of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAA).
    Under its Protocol commitments, the United States is obligated to
cease production and import of Class I controlled substances excluding
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are subject to essential use
exemptions, methyl bromide that is subject to critical use exemptions
or exemptions for quarantine and preshipment uses or emergency uses,
previously used material, and material that will be transformed,
destroyed, or exported to developing countries. The Protocol also
establishes limits and reduction schedules leading to the eventual
phaseout of Class II controlled substances with similar exemptions
beyond the phaseout. In addition to the Montreal Protocol, the CAA has
its own limits on production and consumption of controlled substances
that EPA must adhere to and enforce.
    Under 40 CFR 82.13, producers, importers, exporters, distributors,
and other entities must meet quarterly, annual, and/or transactional
requirements for Class I ozone-depleting substances (ODS). This
information collection is conducted to meet U.S. obligations under the
Montreal Protocol. The information collection request is required to
obtain a benefit under Title VI of the CAA, added by section 764 of the
1999 Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
(Pub. L. No. 105-277; October 21, 1998).
    The requirements for Class I ODS will enable EPA to: (1) Ensure
compliance with the restrictions on production, import, and export of
Class I controlled substances; (2) allow exempted production and import
for certain uses and the consequent tracking of that production and
import; (3) address industry and Federal concerns regarding the illegal
import of mislabeled used controlled substances; (4) satisfy the United
States' obligations to report data under Article 7 of the Protocol; (5)
fulfill statutory obligations under Section 603(b) of the CAA for
reporting and monitoring; and (6) provide information to report to the
U.S. Congress on the production, use, and consumption of Class I
controlled substances as statutorily required in section 603(d) of
Title VI of the CAA.
    The reported data will enable EPA to: (1) Maintain compliance with
the Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the production
of ODS; and (2) analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions
are used in accordance with requirements included in the annual
authorization rulemakings.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Chemical Producers, Importers, and
Exporters (CFCs); Research and Development (Laboratories); and MeBr
Producers, Importers, Exporters, Distributors, and Applicators.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,157.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly, annually, and occasionally.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,810 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $269,242, including $5,580 in O&M
costs and no capital costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 5,560 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden currently identified in the OMB
Inventory of Approved ICR Burdens. This large decrease is primarily due
to a decrease in the overall burden for compliance, specifically the
hours needed to certify laboratory and QPS uses of ozone depleting
substances. The prior estimate for self-certification was much higher
than the Agency's experience has shown it to be. The burden and cost
estimates for the Agency increased largely due to increases in the
average hourly wage rate caused by normal inflation. As implementation
of electronic reporting via the Agency's central data exchange (CDX)
expands to additional segments of the regulated community, EPA expects
burden and costs to further decline. EPA anticipated that when the CDX
system becomes fully utilized, all required data will be submitted and
tracked electronically, thus reducing and/or eliminating reporting by
paper.

    Dated: October 30, 2008.
Deborah Williams,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E8-26498 Filed 11-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5428-5429]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01679]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0691; FRL-10003-50-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Requirements Rule (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements Rule (EPA ICR Number 2258.05,
OMB Control Number 2060-0611), to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed renewal of the existing ICR for the
PM2.5 NAAQS State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements
Rule, which is currently approved through January 31, 2020. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register on October
1, 2019, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct, or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2013-0691, online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
    The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Leigh Herrington, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The PM2.5 NAAQS SIP Requirements Rule became
effective on October 24, 2016 (81 FR 58010). This rule provides the
framework of Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for air agencies to
develop state implementation plans to help attain and maintain the
PM2.5 NAAQS. States have applied this framework to develop
attainment plans and redesignation requests and maintenance plans for
areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The ICR finalized with the PM2.5 NAAQS SIP Requirements
Rule estimated, for the 3 years following the ICR approval date, the
burden associated with plan development and plan revisions related to
ongoing implementation efforts in 31 areas designated nonattainment for
the 1997, 2006 and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. The estimates included
the burden to develop and submit, and the burden to the EPA to review
and to approve or disapprove, attainment plans to meet the requirements
prescribed in CAA sections 110 and part D, subparts 1 and 4 of title I.
A PM2.5 NAAQS attainment plan contains rules and other
measures designed to improve air quality and achieve the NAAQS by the
deadlines established under the CAA. It also must address several
additional CAA requirements related to demonstrating timely attainment
and must contain contingency measures in the event the nonattainment
area does not achieve reasonable further progress throughout the
attainment period or in the event the area does not attain the NAAQS by
its attainment date. States that have attained by the applicable
attainment date may be eligible to submit a redesignation request and
maintenance plan to receive a redesignation from ``nonattainment'' to
``attainment.'' After a state submits an attainment or maintenance
plan, the CAA requires the

EPA to approve or disapprove the plan. Tribes may develop or submit
attainment plans but are not required to do so.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: State and local governments.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR parts 50, 51,
and 93).
    Estimated number of respondents: 8.
    Frequency of response: Once per triggering event.
    Total estimated burden: 25,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated costs: $1,600,000 (per year), which includes no
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 65,100 annual hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is primarily a result of a reduction in
the number of designated nonattainment areas.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-01679 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 102 (Tuesday, May 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31839-31840]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12482]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0821; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-8]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Beeville-Chase Field, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action makes a correction to the title and airspace
description of a final rule published in the Federal Register of March
28, 2013. The title and airspace designation are corrected to read
Beeville-Chase Field, TX.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    Federal Register document FAA 2012-0821, Airspace Docket No. 12-
ASW-8, establishes Class E Airspace at Chase Field Industrial Airport,
Beeville, TX (78 FR 18801, March 28, 2013). Subsequent to publication,
the FAA found that existing controlled airspace already is charted for
another airport at Beeville, TX, with the same descriptor. Since there
can only be one Beeville, TX, the title and airspace designation for
Chase Field Industrial Airport is changed from Beeville, TX, to
Beeville-Chase Field, TX. This correction is related to published
aeronautical charts that are essential to the user, and provide for the
safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated

August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, on page
18801, column 2, line 14, the title as published in the Federal
Register of March 28, 2013 (78 FR 18801) FR Doc. 2013-06913, is
corrected to read `` . . . Beeville-Chase Field, TX''; and on page
18802, column 1, line 31, the legal description is changed as follows:
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Beeville-Chase Field, TX [Corrected]

Chase Field Industrial Airport, TX
    (Lat. 28[deg]21'36'' N., long. 97[deg]39'36'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Chase Field Industrial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 15, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-12482 Filed 5-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Posey County Wind Rose Analysis  2000 Wind Speed and Wind Direction on 4 Highest 8 hour Ozone Days Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 86 ppb Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 86 ppb Maximum 8 hour ozone concentration of 86 ppb Maximum 8 hour Ozone concentration of 93 ppb


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63601-63604]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24688]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0990; FRL-10002-03-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve, under the Clean Air Act (CAA), a revision to Ohio's State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency (OEPA) on March 30, 2011 and amended on August 22,
2019. The proposed SIP revision modifies Ohio's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to establish emission
thresholds for determining when stationary source projects are
potentially subject to Ohio's PSD permitting requirements for
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Consistent with Ohio's August 22, 2019,
request, EPA is not acting on the portion of Ohio's submittal that
would allow for automatic rescission of certain rule provisions and
permit terms and conditions if certain triggering events occurred
(i.e., the auto-rescission clause).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0990 at http://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 edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, 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 http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Angelbeck, Environmental
Scientist, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background for our Proposed Action
II. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for Our Proposed Action

    This section briefly summarizes EPA's GHG-related actions that
provide the background for this proposed action. More detailed
discussion of the background is found in the preambles for those
actions. In particular, background information is contained in what we
call the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing Rule,\1\ and in the preambles to the
actions it cites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 (December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. GHG-Related Actions

    EPA has undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the regulation
of GHGs that establish the overall framework for this proposed action
on the Ohio SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and the ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action; \2\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration;'' \3\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule (LDVR);'' \4\
and the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \5\ Taken together and in conjunction with
the CAA, these actions established

regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted from new motor vehicles and
new motor vehicle engines; determined that such regulations, when they
took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected GHGs emitted from stationary
sources to PSD requirements; and limited the applicability of PSD
requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis. EPA took this
limiting action in the GHG Tailoring Rule (Tailoring Rule), which more
specifically established appropriate GHG emission thresholds for
determining the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a)of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \3\ See ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine
Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR
17004 (April 2, 2010).
    \4\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \5\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Tile V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PSD is implemented through the SIP system, and so in December 2010,
EPA promulgated several rules to implement the new GHG PSD SIP program.
Recognizing that some states had approved SIP PSD programs that did not
apply PSD to GHGs, EPA issued a SIP call and, for some of these states,
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).\6\ States without approved SIP
programs must implement the Federal PSD requirements in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.21. Recognizing that other states had
approved SIP PSD programs that do apply PSD to GHGs, but that do so for
sources that emit as little as 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy) of GHG,
and that do not limit PSD applicability to GHGs to the higher
thresholds in the Tailoring Rule, EPA issued the GHG PSD SIP Narrowing
Rule. Under that rule, EPA withdrew its approval of the affected SIPs
to the extent those SIPs covered GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds. EPA based its action primarily on the
``error correction'' provisions of CAA section 110(k)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Specifically, by action dated December 13, 2010, EPA
finalized a ``SIP Call'' that would require those states with SIPs
that have approved PSD programs but do not authorize PSD permitting
for GHGs to submit a SIP revision providing such authority. See
``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' 75 FR
77698 (Dec. 13, 2010). EPA has made findings of failure to submit
that would apply in any state unable to submit the required SIP
revision by its deadline, and finalizing FIPs for such states. See,
e.g., ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases,'' 75 FR
81874 (December 29, 2010); ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue
Permits Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to
Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan,
``75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of January 2, 2011, GHG emissions were, for the first time,
covered by the title V operating permit and PSD programs via the
Tailoring Rule. In Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule (Step 1), EPA limited
application of title V and PSD requirements to sources and
modifications of GHG emissions, but only if they were subject to PSD or
title V ``anyway'' due to their emissions of pollutants other than
GHGs. These sources and modifications covered under Step 1 are commonly
referred to as ``anyway sources'' and ``anyway modifications'',
respectively.
    In Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule (Step 2), which applied as of July
1, 2011, the PSD and title V requirements extended beyond the sources
and modifications covered under Step 1 to apply to sources that were
classified as major sources based solely on their GHG emissions or
potential to emit GHGs. Step 2 also applied PSD permitting requirements
to modifications of otherwise major sources that would increase only
GHG emissions above the level in the Federal PSD regulations. EPA
generally described the sources and modifications covered by PSD under
Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule as ``Step 2 sources and modifications'' or
``GHG only sources and modifications.''
    In accordance with the phase-in process of the Tailoring Rule, EPA
published Step 3 of the Tailoring Rule on July 12, 2012. See 77 FR
41051. In this rule, EPA decided against further phase-in of the PSD
and title V requirements for sources emitting lower levels of GHG
emissions, thus the GHG thresholds remained the same as established in
Steps 1 and 2 of the Tailoring Rule.
    Federal courts have resolved several challenges to the Tailoring
Rule and other EPA actions regarding GHGs. On June 26, 2012, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C.
Circuit) upheld the Endangerment Finding, LDVR, Tailoring Rule, and
other actions pertinent to the regulation of GHGs under the PSD and
title V programs. After an appeal of this case, on June 23, 2014, the
U.S. Supreme Court addressed the application of stationary source
permitting requirements to GHG emissions in Utility Air Regulatory
Group (UARG) v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014). The Supreme Court upheld
EPA's regulation of GHG Step 1 or ``anyway'' sources, but held that EPA
may not treat GHGs as air pollutants for the purpose of determining
whether a source is a major source or is undergoing a major
modification and thus require the source to obtain a PSD or title V
permit. Therefore, the Court invalidated the PSD and title V permitting
requirements for Step 2 sources and modifications.
    In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, on April 10, 2015,
the D.C. Circuit issued an Amended Judgment \7\ vacating the
regulations that implemented Step 2 of the Tailoring Rule, but not the
regulations that implement Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule. The 2015
Amended Judgment specifically vacated the EPA regulations under review
(including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v)) ``to the
extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if
greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or
has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds,
or (ii) for which there is a significant emissions increase from a
modification.'' Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 606
Fed. Appx. 6, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a subsequent rulemaking, on August 19, 2015, EPA removed from
the CFR several provisions of the PSD and title V permitting
regulations that were originally promulgated as part of the Tailoring
Rule. See ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and title V
Permitting for Greenhouse Gases: Removal of Certain Vacated Elements''
(80 FR 50199, August 19, 2015). This ``good cause'' final rule removed
from the Federal regulations the portions of the PSD permitting
provisions for Step 2 sources that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit
(i.e., 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v). EPA therefore no
longer has the authority to conduct PSD permitting for Step 2 sources.
On October 3, 2016, EPA proposed revisions to the PSD permitting
regulations applicable to GHGs to address the GHG applicability
threshold for PSD in order to fully conform with the 2014 UARG decision
and the 2015 Amended Judgment, but those revisions have not been
finalized. See 81 FR 68110.

B. Ohio's Actions

    The Tailoring Rule requested all states to submit a letter to EPA,
by August 2, 2010, explaining how the state intended to implement the
GHG PSD and title V permitting requirements and whether it had
authority to implement those requirements. 75 FR 31514 (June 3, 2010).
On July 26, 2010, Ohio provided a letter to EPA confirming that the
state has the authority to regulate GHGs in its PSD program. The letter
provided that Ohio intended to apply the meaning of the term ``subject
to regulation'' that EPA established in the Tailoring Rule. The letter
also confirmed Ohio's intent to amend its air quality rules for the PSD
program for GHGs to match the thresholds set in the Tailoring Rule. See

the docket for this proposed rulemaking for a copy of Ohio's letter.
    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010), EPA
withdrew its approval of certain provisions of Ohio's SIP, among other
SIPs, to the extent that those provisions applied PSD permitting
requirements to GHG emissions from sources emitting at levels below
those set in the Tailoring Rule.\8\ As a result, Ohio's current SIP
provides the state with authority to regulate GHGs but only at and
above the Tailoring Rule thresholds; and requires new and modified
sources to receive a PSD permit based on GHG emissions only if they
emit at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 82536 December
30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ohio's proposal to revise its SIP so as to limit PSD applicability
to the higher GHG emissions thresholds in the Tailoring Rule is
consistent with CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i), which requires states to
provide necessary assurances that they have adequate funding and
personnel to implement their SIPs. In the Tailoring Rule, EPA
established higher thresholds for PSD applicability to GHG-emitting
sources on grounds that the states generally did not have adequate
resources to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the Tailoring Rule
thresholds,\9\ and no state, including Ohio, asserted that it did have
adequate resources to do so.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31517.
    \10\ PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, 75 FR 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the SIP Narrowing Rule, EPA found that the affected states,
including Ohio, had a flaw in their SIPs at the time they submitted
their PSD programs, which was that the applicability of the PSD
programs was potentially broader than the resources available to them
under their SIP.\11\ Accordingly, for each affected state, including
Ohio, EPA concluded, under CAA section 110(k)(6), that EPA's action in
approving the SIP was in error, and EPA rescinded its approval to the
extent the PSD program applies to GHG-emitting sources below the
Tailoring Rule thresholds.\12\ EPA recommended that states adopt a SIP
revision to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds, thereby (i)
assuring that under state law, only sources at or above the Tailoring
Rule thresholds would be subject to PSD; and (ii) avoiding confusion
under the federally-approved SIP by clarifying that the SIP only
applies to sources at or above the Tailoring Rule thresholds.\13\ Ohio
revised its PSD and title V rules by creating Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) rules 3745-31-34 and 3745-77-11, respectively (Ohio's GHG rules)
to ensure that its authority to implement GHG permitting requirements
under the PSD and title V programs is consistent with the authority
authorized by EPA in the Tailoring Rule. Ohio's rule revisions also
incorporated the GHG PSD applicability thresholds that EPA established
in the Tailoring Rule. Approval of Ohio's SIP revision would resolve a
flaw in the SIP as addressed by the SIP Narrowing Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. at 82542.
    \12\ Id. at 82544.
    \13\ Id. at 82540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of the State's Submittal

    The regulatory revisions that OEPA submitted for approval on March
30, 2011, establish thresholds for determining which stationary sources
and modifications become subject to permitting requirements for GHG
emissions under OEPA's PSD program. Specifically, the submittal
includes proposed changes to Ohio's PSD regulations and requests that
EPA approve and incorporate into Ohio's federally-approved SIP OAC rule
3745-31-34, that Ohio adopted on March 21, 2011. Upon approval, this
revision to Ohio's SIP will put in place the GHG emission thresholds
for PSD applicability set forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule which will
clarify the applicable GHG thresholds in the Ohio SIP.
    Ohio is currently a SIP-approved state for the PSD program and has
previously incorporated some elements of EPA's 2002 New Source Review
(NSR) reform revisions, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002) for PSD into
its SIP, 75 FR 8496 (February 25, 2010). In a letter provided to EPA on
July 26, 2010, Ohio notified EPA of its interpretation that the state
currently has the authority to regulate GHGs under its PSD regulations.
Ohio's PSD SIP, which EPA approved prior to the promulgation of the
Tailoring Rule, applies to major stationary sources (having the
potential to emit at least 100 tpy or 250 tpy or more of a regulated
NSR pollutant, depending on the type of source) or modifications
undertaken in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable with
respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    On August 22, 2019, Ohio sent a letter to EPA requesting that EPA
not act on OAC 3745-31-34(C) and (D) as well as OAC 3745-77-11, but to
move forward with the approval of the remainder of OAC 3745-31-34 (OAC
3745-31-34(A),(B),(E),(F) and (G)), thus amending Ohio's March 30, 2011
SIP submittal. OAC 3745-31-34(C) and (D) would allow for automatic
rescission of certain GHG rule provisions and permit terms and
conditions if certain triggering events occurred. Such provisions are
commonly referred to as ``auto-rescission'' provisions or clauses.
Consistent with Ohio's request, EPA is not acting on the auto-
rescission provisions in this proposed approval. Per Ohio's request,
EPA is also not acting on OAC 3745-77-11, Ohio's GHG title V rule.
    The Ohio rules at OAC 3745-31-34(A) and (B) both include the
100,000 tpy carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) Step 2 source threshold
which EPA no longer uses or enforces per the 2014 UARG decision and
2015 Amended Judgment. EPA proposes to approve OAC 3745-31-34(A) and
(B) even though they include the outdated 100,000 tpy CO2e Step 2
threshold because those rules no longer authorize the regulation of
Step 2 sources. Paragraph OAC 3745-31-34(A) requires permits for new
major stationary sources that will emit or have the potential to emit
100,000 tpy or more of CO2e, and for modifications of existing
stationary sources that will result in a net emissions increase of
75,000 tpy or more of CO2e, as provided in the Ohio GHG rule and ``only
to the extent required in 40 CFR Section 151.166.'' EPA interprets the
phrase ``and only to the extent required in 40 CFR Section 51.166'' in
Ohio's rule to mean that Ohio will only regulate GHGs to the extent
required in 40 CFR 51.166 (the Federal requirements governing PSD
provisions in SIPs). Therefore, Ohio will regulate the Step 1 sources
(75,000 tpy CO2e threshold) and not the Step 2 sources (100,000 tpy
threshold) as provided in 40 CFR 51.166. EPA notes that Ohio's August
26, 2014 guidance document titled ``July 2014 GHG Air Pollution
Permitting Change, Engineering Guide #85'' describes how the UARG
decision affects Ohio's GHG permitting program and how Ohio will no
longer require PSD or title V for Step 2 sources in response to the
UARG decision. Ohio's guidance document says Ohio will continue to
require new or modified Step 1 sources to apply Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for GHGs and will continue to use the 75,000 tpy CO2e
threshold to determine if the permits need to include BACT for GHGs
until such time as EPA issues a revised threshold. Ohio's guidance
document also explains that OAC 3745-31-34 will be implemented in line
with the UARG decision and EPA's subsequent regulatory revisions.

    For the above reasons, EPA finds that Ohio is properly regulating
GHGs in accordance with the 2014 UARG decision and 2015 Amended
Judgement. Although OAC 3745-31-34(A) and (B) contain the 100,000 CO2e
tpy Step 2 threshold which the UARG decision says cannot be enforced,
EPA is proposing to approve those rules because Ohio is not regulating
the Step 2 sources, and is only regulating the Step 1 sources.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Ohio's March 30, 2011, SIP submittal,
as amended on August 22, 2019, relating to PSD requirements for GHG-
emitting sources in OAC 3745-31-34. Specifically, Ohio's proposed SIP
revision would establish appropriate emissions thresholds for
determining PSD applicability for new and modified GHG-emitting sources
in accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule and the 2014 UARG decision. Per
Ohio's August 22, 2019, amended SIP request, EPA is not acting on the
OAC 3745-31-34(C) and (D) auto-rescission clause or OAC 3745-77-11,
which is Ohio's GHG title V rule.
    If EPA does approve Ohio's changes to its air quality regulations
to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG permitting
applicability into Ohio's SIP, then 40 CFR 52.1873(b), as included in
EPA's SIP Narrowing Rule, which codifies EPA's limiting its approval of
Ohio's PSD SIP to not cover the applicability of PSD to GHG-emitting
sources below the Tailoring Rule thresholds, is no longer necessary. In
this proposed action, EPA is proposing to amend 40 CFR 52.1873(b) to
remove this unnecessary regulatory language.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference Ohio OAC 3745-31-34(A), (B), (E), (F) and (G) effective on
March 31, 2011. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 31, 2019.
Cheryl L. Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2019-24688 Filed 11-15-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P