[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46742-46747]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18952]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0550; FRL 9915-02-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa;
2014 Iowa State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant full approval of Iowa's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). Iowa completed the SIP revision in response to a SIP
Call finalized by EPA on July 14, 2011, finding that the Iowa SIP was
substantially inadequate to maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in Muscatine County, Iowa. Iowa submitted its revised SIP to EPA
on February 18, 2014. EPA believes that the SIP revision submitted by
the state satisfies the applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) identified in EPA's SIP Call and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and will keep the Muscatine area in attainment
of the 35 microgram/cubic meter (ug/m\3\)PM 2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0550, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail, Hand Delivery or Courier: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0550. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas. EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make
an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email her at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Background
V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP
    A. Facility Descriptions
    B. Modeling and Emissions Inventory Data
    C. Control Strategy
    D. Contingency Measures
    E. Enforceability
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Iowa's SIP revision for
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Iowa submitted this SIP
revision in response to EPA's Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Iowa State Implementation Plan Revision
related to the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) in Muscatine County, Iowa. 76 FR 41424 (July 14, 2011)
(hereinafter referred to as the ``SIP Call''). Iowa's SIP revision
demonstrates continued attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Have the requirements for the approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Iowa's SIP revision in
response to EPA's SIP Call to maintain the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. We are processing this as a proposed action
because we are soliciting comments. Final rulemaking will occur after
consideration of any comments.

IV. Background

    EPA determined based on 2008-2010 monitoring data from a monitor
within the city limits of Muscatine, Iowa that the Iowa SIP was
inadequate to maintain attainment with the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. 76 FR 41424.\1\ EPA based the SIP call on its
review of the monitoring data as well as the information from the
violating monitor. All portions of Muscatine County are, and continue
to be designated as attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A complete history of EPA's rule making can be found at 76
FR 9706, and 76 FR 41424. A summary is also included in the
Technical Support Document (TSD) in the public docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA issued its SIP call under section 110(k)(5) of the CAA and
required Iowa to submit a SIP revision within 18 months of the
effective date of the SIP Call that included: (1) An emissions
inventory of sources expected to contribute to the violating monitor;
(2) a modeling demonstration showing the reductions needed to attain
and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS; (3) enforceable control
measures necessary to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS;
and (4) enforceable commitments to adopt and implement contingency
measures if the area does not attain or violates the standard. The SIP
Call required that Iowa's SIP revision provide for attainment and
maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in Muscatine
County as expeditiously as practicable.
    Iowa submitted its SIP revision to EPA on February 18, 2014.

V. Technical Review of the Attainment Demonstration SIP

A. Facility Descriptions

    In order to meet the requirements of the SIP Call, Iowa developed a
control strategy for Muscatine County. Iowa determined that there were
three facilities that were significant contributors to modeled
exceedances in the vicinity of the Garfield School monitor: Grain
Processing Corporation (GPC), Muscatine Power & Water (MPW) and Union
Tank Car (UTC). The largest source of PM2.5 near the
Garfield School monitor is GPC. The modeling demonstration submitted by
Iowa shows that GPC has actual PM2.5 emissions of 537.6
tons/year. MPW and UTC have 58.3 and 3.0 tons/year of PM2.5
emissions, respectively.
    GPC is located approximately 500 meters east/southeast of the
Garfield School monitor. GPC processes grain into industrial, beverage,
and fuel-grade ethanol, grain based food products, industrial products,
and animal feeds. GPC has nearly 200 PM2.5 emission points,
including coal and gas-fired boilers, dryers, coolers and associated
material handling and storage equipment.
    Union Tank Car (UTC) supplies and reconditions rail tank cars for
use through rental agreements. The primary sources of PM2.5
from UTC are from the removal of paint from rail tank cars, repair of
rail tank cars, and application of paint through a spray system on rail
tank cars. UTC is not a major source of PM2.5, but is
located near the Garfield School monitor. Iowa determined that UTC
contributed to predicted violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
Therefore, Iowa included UTC in the control strategy.
    Muscatine Power & Water (MPW) is a municipal electric generating
station located approximately 1.6 kilometers south and east of the
Garfield School monitor. The primary sources of PM2.5 at MPW
include emissions from three coal-fired boilers, Units 7, 8, and 9, and
emissions from the associated handling and storage equipment.

B. Modeling and Emissions Inventory Data

    In the final SIP Call, EPA required the state to submit a modeled
attainment demonstration which is consistent with appendix W to 40 CFR
part 51. EPA required the modeling to show what reductions will be
needed to attain and maintain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the area.
The state adequately addressed this requirement in its SIP submittal.
    The SIP revision includes a detailed explanation of the modeling
conducted. Included in the state's plan is discussion of model
selection and options including: The extent of the receptor grid,
receptor grid spacing, terrain elevations, downwash, and meteorological
data. The state also provides background as to the iterative analyses
conducted as well as the detailed development of model inputs for
emissions and meteorology.
    During the development of the plan and in previous technical
modeling exercises regarding the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
designations, EPA provided technical expertise to the state regarding
modeling activities. EPA Region 7 reviewed and provided comment on the
state's modeling protocol during the development of the
PM2.5 Muscatine SIP. (The modeling protocol is including in
the state's formal submission as attachment A.)
    In evaluating the SIP revision for consistency with appendix W to
40 CFR part 51, EPA Region 7 believes the state submission to be
consistent with EPA's modeling requirements. Because local point
sources are considered to be the significant contributors to the
monitor 24-hour PM2.5 violations, the state's modeling was
conducted using AERMOD version 12345. Again, the model selection,
modeling inputs, such as background concentrations and significant
impact levels, and results of modeled attainment tests were subject to
consultation with EPA Region 7 prior

to the formal completion of the control strategy selection.
    In the SIP Call, EPA stated that the state must include in the
revised SIP an emissions inventory consistent with 40 CFR 51.114. This
regulatory provision provides for identification of emissions data and
projections and each plan must contain a detailed inventory of
emissions from point and area sources.
    Iowa has adequately addressed this requirement in the SIP revision.
Iowa reviewed the average 2007 and 2008 facility-wide actual emissions
from the facilities shown to contribute significantly to violations of
the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Building upon the technical
analysis which occurred during the designations process for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and in reviewing inventory for the
development of modeling, the state determined three sources
significantly contributed to the Garfield School monitored violations.
Because of the form of the standard (24-hour average), local sources
were determined to be critical in terms of contributions to ambient
PM2.5 concentrations. The state, as noted in their SIP, did
not identify any other potential emissions sources in the area of the
violating monitor, such as area and mobile sources, as contributing
significantly to the NAAQS violations. Background concentrations were
added to modeled results to account for the regional transport of fine
particulate matter and any unidentified local sources such as mobile
and area sources not explicitly included in the model.

 C. Control Strategy

    Iowa determined that three sources: GPC, MPW, and UTC, contributed
to modeled exceedances of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Iowa's SIP
includes a control strategy addressing each of these sources. Iowa's
control strategy for GPC is memorialized in Administrative Consent
Order No. 2014-AQ-A1 (ACO), which is an administrative consent order
between the Iowa Department of Natural Resources and GPC and is
included as part of Iowa's SIP revision as SIP attachment B. The ACO
includes a schedule for implementing the control strategy, as well as
recordkeeping, reporting and testing requirements. The provisions of
the ACO will be incorporated into permits, which will then be submitted
to EPA for approval into the state SIP. The ACO includes numerous and
substantial changes at the GPC facility. The control measures include
new particulate controls or improvements to existing particulate
controls on a number of sources; shutdown of existing equipment;
replacement of old equipment; installation of more efficient equipment;
regular sweeping and watering of road surfaces; increase of stack
heights; and operating restrictions on certain processes. As described
in detail in attachment A to the ACO, GPC has already implemented the
control strategy at many of its emission points. This includes
operation restrictions, PM2.5 emission limits, shutdown of
emission units, and stack height increases. However, there are several
large-scale projects that will require substantial planning and
construction by GPC.
    Due to the scale and complexity of the control strategy
implementation at GPC, GPC has developed a phased implementation
schedule that is already underway and concludes in December 2016. Many
of the changes at the GPC facility are contingent upon completion of a
significant project related to a new dryer house (Dryer House
5 or DH 5) that is also required under a 2006 Consent Order
entered into between GPC and the State of Iowa to address
PM10 emissions. The DH 5 project is included in Iowa's SIP
revision to address PM2.5 emissions.
    The SIP Call occurred at the same time GPC was designing the DH 5
project to comply with the 2006 Consent Order. To demonstrate
compliance with the PM2.5 SIP Call, GPC re-evaluated the DH
5 project and made adjustments to the design to accommodate the more
stringent plant-wide changes required by the PM2.5 SIP Call.
As a result of the changes to the project to accommodate the
PM2.5 SIP Call control strategy, the design complexity, and
construction logistics for the DH 5 project, GPC will complete the
project on March 31, 2015.
    The control strategy includes several large scale projects that are
tied to the installation and completion of the DH 5 project. They are
described in detail in the Technical Support Document for this action.
    The control strategy for GPC also includes several large scale
projects that are complex in all aspects, including design and
construction, and will require an extended schedule to complete. These
projects include improvements to the dryer and scrubber performance at
Gluten Plant Units 1 and 2; and decommissioning of dryers and
conversion of dryers to natural gas. These projects are all described
in detail in the TSD for this action.
    The complexity of the design, fabrication, and construction of the
projects at GPC supports the phased implementation schedule. Further,
approval of the phased implementation schedule does not have a negative
effect on air quality. The 24-hour PM2.5 design values have
been steadily declining over the last three design value periods. The
most recent three year design value (2011-2013) at the Garfield School
monitor is 28 ug/m\3\. Design values at both the Franklin School and
Greenwood Cemetery monitors have also declined. The 2010-2012 design
value for these monitors is 32 ug/m\3\. The on-going implementation of
controls pursuant to the control strategy will ensure that future
design values stay below the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and will
eliminate the oscillation of the design values around the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Full implementation of the control measures at GPC will reduce
PM2.5 emissions from GPC by an estimated 367.9 tons/year.
    As part of the control strategy, Union Tank Car is installing new
particulate controls on several emission points. It is also increasing
stack heights at select locations and restricting operations of certain
processes. Full implementation of control measures at UTC will reduce
PM2.5 emissions from UTC by an estimated 0.3 tons per year.
The UTC control measures are made enforceable through state-issued air
construction permits, which were submitted by Iowa as part of its SIP
revision and will become part of the SIP once EPA has granted full
approval. All of the control measures at UTC have been implemented.
    As part of the control strategy, MPW will conduct regular watering
of road surfaces; pave an unpaved road and water road surfaces; remove
a lime silo and mixing tank, 3 diesel engines, and wet fly ash truck
loading; and implement operational restrictions. MPW will also reduce
the capacity of its limestone hopper loading and handling systems;
install a roofed enclosure with three sides for the limestone hopper;
and reduce the size of the coal pile, limestone pile and synthetic
gypsum pile. MPW is also modifying its dust collection system for its
coal reclaim and the coal crush feeders by reconfiguring the equipment
and increasing the stack height. The MPW control measures are made
enforceable through state-issued air construction permits, which were
submitted by Iowa as part of its SIP revision and will become part of
the SIP once EPA has granted full approval. All of the control measures
at MPW have been implemented. The full implementation of the control
strategy at MPW is expected to reduce PM2.5 emission from
MPW by an estimated 0.7 tons per year.
    In our final rule (76 FR 41424), EPA stated that we would establish
a specific date for attainment at the same time we

took final action on the state's implementation plan revision in
response to this final SIP Call. 76 FR at 41426. At the time of the SIP
Call, we expected the attainment date to be the first full calendar
year following the implementation of controls. In this case, EPA
expected the attainment date would be the first full calendar year
following the required implementation of controls, i.e. 2014.
    However, based upon the information in Iowa's SIP revision, our
review of the supplemental information provided by GPC by email dated
April 29, 2014,\2\ and the current air quality monitoring data for the
Muscatine area, EPA is proposing to establish this attainment date as
December 31, 2017. This proposed attainment date is consistent with
EPA's expectations established in the SIP Call, as it is the first full
calendar year following implementation of controls. Due to the
complexity of the control strategy, particularly the design,
fabrication, and construction of the projects at GPC, and based on the
current monitoring value, demonstrating continued attainment of the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA believes that December 31, 2017 is the
date by which long term compliance with the NAAQS can be achieved as
expeditiously as practicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This information is included in the TSD and docket for this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed control strategy will also further the downward trend
of PM2.5 emissions for the Muscatine area and provide co-
benefits in reductions of other pollutants. Additional analysis can be
found in the TSD for this action.

D. Contingency Measures

    In the SIP Call, EPA stated that it was reasonable to expect that
the 98th percentile value of 24-hour concentrations for the calendar
year after the necessary controls were implemented should be at or
below the 24-hour PM2.5 standard (35 ug/m\3\). 76 FR at
41426. EPA stated that contingency measures will be triggered if that
value is above the 98th percentile value in the calendar year after the
implementation of controls necessary for attainment or in any
subsequent year. Id. EPA then stated that the SIP revision must contain
an enforceable commitment to adopt and implement sufficient contingency
measures, once triggered, in an expeditious and timely fashion that is
comparable and analogous to the requirements for contingency measures
in CAA section 175A(d). Id.
    EPA determined that the reference to CAA section 175A(d) was
warranted because EPA made the SIP call to ensure that the area attains
and then continues to maintain the PM2.5 standard. 76 FR at
41428. At the time of the SIP Call, Iowa did not comment on the
proposed contingency measure trigger. Id.
    In Iowa's SIP, Iowa included a phased approach to the contingency
measure trigger. Iowa stated it will use a violation of the 2015-2017
(or any subsequent) PM2.5 design value measured from the
Garfield School monitor to determine whether contingency measures
should be implemented (first tier trigger). The contingency measures
would then be implemented no later than 24 months as stated in the SIP
Call. If a contingency measure is triggered, Iowa would then use the
98th percentile value for any subsequent calendar year following the
implementation of contingency measures to determine the need for
additional measures (second tier trigger).
    If the 98th percentile for any subsequent calendar year following
the implementation of contingency measure is above 35 ug/m\3\ then
additional contingency measures would be implemented as expeditiously
as practicable, but no later than 24 months after the second tier of
contingency measures is triggered. Like the contingency measures
implemented as a result of the design value trigger (first tier
trigger), the additional contingency measures implemented as a result
of the 98th percentile trigger (second tier trigger) would continue
indefinitely and become part of the permanent control strategy for the
area.
    Iowa stated in its submission that it proposed this two tier
approach because Iowa believed the SIP Call trigger (98th percentile in
the calendar year following implementation of controls) did not
adequately consider the potential role of regional (non-local) events.
Iowa reviewed the statewide historical 98th percentile PM2.5
monitoring data for the past 10 years. Iowa's review showed that if the
SIP Call trigger was used, many communities in eastern Iowa that are
not adjacent to direct sources of PM2.5 and that are not
currently designated as non-attainment for the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, would have been designated non-attainment for the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS due to regional PM2.5 episodes. Iowa
also found that the SIP Call trigger failed to account for the
documented year-to-year variability of meteorological conditions. The
annual variability of meteorological conditions is accounted for in the
form of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, which uses a three-year
average of 98th percentile values.
    EPA commented on this approach during the public comment period on
Iowa's proposed SIP revision. Iowa stated that the two tier trigger
approach allows for the triggering of contingency measures on the same
time schedule that would have been applicable with a trigger based only
on the 98th percentile value for the calendar year after complete
implementation of the control strategy.
    Section 175A(d) contingency measures are required as part of SIPs
to assure that a state will promptly correct any violation of the
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area as an
attainment area. The contingency measures shall include a requirement
that the state will implement all measures with respect to the control
for the air pollutant concerned which were contained in the SIP for the
area before redesignation of the area to attainment. In the SIP Call,
EPA stated that it did not intend to imply that section 175A(d) is
literally applicable to the Muscatine area, but rather provided that
IDNR follow 175A(d) as a guide for developing and implementing
contingency measures. 76 FR at 41428. At the time of the SIP Call, EPA
believed it was reasonable to expect the 98th percentile would be the
appropriate trigger for implementing contingency measures. 76 FR at
41426. After reviewing Iowa's SIP revision and the associated
contingency measures, EPA believes that the SIP revision meets the
requirements of the SIP Call.
    Iowa has used Section 175A(d) as guidance in developing the
contingency measures, as required by the SIP Call. The contingency
measure trigger proposed by Iowa is also reasonable. The first
contingency measure trigger using the design value to determine whether
there is a violation is consistent with the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The second contingency measure trigger using the 98th percentile
value is consistent with EPA's SIP Call. Iowa will immediately
implement the contingency measures as described below, upon reaching
the first trigger.
    EPA has carefully reviewed the control strategy and the contingency
measures proposed and agrees that the design value trigger for the
contingency measures is reasonable, given the strength of the control
strategy and the contingency measures proposed and the current design
value data of 28 ug/m\3\.
    EPA is proposing to adopt Iowa's two tier contingency measure
approach. The two tier approach is protective of air quality and
provides for a comprehensive approach to contingency measures.
Therefore, EPA proposes to

approve Iowa's two tier trigger for the contingency measures.
    As with all aspects of this proposal, EPA is taking comment on the
approval of the two tier contingency measure trigger.
    In the event that the 2015-2107 24-hour PM2.5 design
value exceeds the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the Garfield School
monitor, Iowa will require the submission of an emissions control
program from the appropriate sources in the area. Iowa will determine
which sources are required to submit an emissions control program based
on the circumstances that triggered the exceedance. Iowa developed some
potential contingency measures that may provide additional reductions
in the event of an exceedance. These include the following: Evaluate
and install additional control equipment, as needed; evaluate and
implement changes in stack parameters and stack configurations to
improve dispersion of emissions; evaluate and implement additional
operation and production restrictions; evaluate and implement process
changes to reduce PM2.5 and PM2.5 formation;
review operations and maintenance procedures to determine whether
improvements can be made; re-evaluate traffic flow patterns at
facilities and vehicle miles traveled to determine whether idling time
and congestion can be reduced; re-evaluate material produce unloading,
handling, and loading procedures and patters to determine whether
improvements can be made; re-evaluate facility best management
practices associated with housekeeping including cleaning internal and
external areas to minimize dust when the facility is receiving,
transferring or loading out materials and product; consider planting
vegetation in specific areas to control dust flow patterns and fugitive
emissions; and identify and implement other improvements that may be
necessary based on potential sources of particulate emissions.
    The contingency measures adoption and implementation schedule is as
follows:

        Contingency Measures Adoption and Implementation Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Activity                Completion date  (T=trigger date)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Evaluate circumstances of      T + 1 month.
 trigger; ID sources.
(2) Identify additional control    T + 2 months.
 measures.
(3) Facility(s) submit emission    T + 4 months.
 control program.
(4) Issue order or permits.......  T + 6 months.
(5) Facility(s) implement          Within T + 24 months.
 additional control measures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The emissions control plan for any facility required to submit a
plan would include the necessary supporting technical information,
emissions calculations, construction permit applications, and air
quality evaluation to make the additional control measure enforceable
through the issuance of an order or construction permits. This approach
requires each affected facility to create and implement an emissions
control plan with targeted control measures appropriate to the
circumstances of the situation that triggered the contingency measures.

E. Enforceability

    As specified in section 172(c)(6) and section 110(a)(2)(A) of the
CAA and 57 FR 13556, all measures and other elements in the SIP must be
enforceable by the state and EPA. The enforceable documents included in
Iowa's SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve are the ACO\3\
(Administrative Consent Order No. 2014-AQ-A1) and the construction
permits for MPW and UTC. The ACO contains all the control measures with
enforceable dates for implementation. The construction permits for MPW
and UTC contain all the necessary operational requirements for
implementation. Further, the control strategy at MPW and UTC is in the
process of being fully implemented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As stated in Iowa's SIP submission letter of February 18,
2014, Iowa did not submit Section III, Paragraph 5, the last
sentence, or Section VI to EPA for approval. Therefore, those
provisions of the 2014 ACO are not part of Iowa's SIP and are not
considered by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon EPA approval of the SIP revision, the ACO and the state
permits will become state and Federally enforceable, and enforceable by
citizens under section 304 of the CAA. The ACO specifically allows for
the enforcement of the ACO if the terms and provisions are not met. EPA
is not bound by the state's enforcement or penalty actions and would
enforce violations of this document under section 113 of the CAA or
other Federal authorities.
    EPA proposed to approve Iowa's SIP as meeting sections 172(c)(6)
and 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and 57 FR 13556.

V. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to grant full approval of Iowa's SIP revision to
maintain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).This action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action. This action merely approves
a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. This rule also is not subject to Executive
Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a
state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 10, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to
file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for
judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw
this direct final rule and address the comment in the final rulemaking.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: August 1, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-18952 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55145-55147]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25039]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82075; File No. SR-BX-2017-050]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Transaction Fees at Rule 7018 To Change the Amounts of
Certain Credits for Entering Orders That Access Liquidity in the
Exchange's Equities System

November 14, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 1, 2017, Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Rule 7018 to change the amounts of certain credits for entering orders
that access liquidity in the Exchange's Equities System.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqbx.cchwallstreet.com/ com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purposes of the proposed rule changes are to amend the
Exchange's transaction fees at Rule 7018 to: (1) increase from $0.0016
to $0.0017 its per share executed credit for orders that access
liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders
that receive price improvement and execute against an order with a Non-
displayed price) entered by members that accesses liquidity equal to or
exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month; and (2)
reduce its credit for entering an order that accesses liquidity in the
Exchange's Equities System for ``all other orders,'' i.e., orders that
do not qualify for other available credits for removing liquidity.
    The Exchange operates on the ``taker-maker'' model, whereby it pays
credits to members that take liquidity and charges fees to members that
provide liquidity. Currently, the Exchange offers five different
credits for orders that access liquidity on the Exchange. First, the
Exchange pays a credit of $0.0016 per share executed for an order that
accesses liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and
excluding orders that receive price improvement and execute against an
order with a Non-displayed price) entered by a member that accesses
liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume
during a month. Second, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0015 per share
executed to an order that accesses liquidity (excluding orders with
Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price improvement
and execute against an order with a Non-displayed price) entered by a
member that accesses liquidity equal to or exceeding 0.05% of total
Consolidated Volume during [sic] month. Third, the Exchange pays a
credit of $0.0000 per share executed for an order that receives price
improvement and executes against an order with a Non-displayed price.
Fourth, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 per share executed for an
order with Midpoint pegging that removes liquidity. Finally, the
Exchange pays a credit of $0.0003 per share executed for ``all other
orders.''
    The Exchange now proposes to increase from $0.0016 to $0.0017 its
(per share executed) credit for orders that access liquidity (excluding
orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding orders that receive price
improvement and execute against an order with a Non-

displayed price) entered by members that accesses [sic] liquidity equal
to or exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. The
Exchange also proposes to reduce the credit for ``all other orders''
from $0.0003 per share executed to $0.0001 per share executed. All of
the other credits and charges will remain the same.
    The Exchange is proposing the first of these changes to provide a
greater incentive to member firms to remove liquidity from the
Exchange.
    The Exchange is proposing the second of these changes because it
believes that a $0.0001 credit is more closely aligned to the
requirements necessary to qualify for that credit and the behavior that
the credit is designed to incentivize. The Exchange notes that, unlike
other credits the Exchange offers for accessing liquidity, a member
does not have to meet any volume requirements in order to qualify for
this credit. In contrast, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 per
share executed for an order that receives price improvement and
executes against an order with a Non-displayed price, and for an order
with Midpoint pegging that removes liquidity. In comparison to these
other credits and their attendant requirements, and given that the
Exchange is limited in the amount of credits that it provides to
members, the Exchange believes the new credit amount is appropriate.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission \6\
(``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\7\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \7\ See NetCoalition, at 534--535.
    \8\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \9\ Although the court and the
SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes
that these views apply with equal force to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to increase from
$0.0016 to $0.0017 its (per share executed) credit for orders that
access liquidity (excluding orders with Midpoint pegging and excluding
orders that receive price improvement and execute against an order with
Midpoint pegging [sic]) entered by members that access liquidity equal
to or exceeding 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month. The
Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of its
credits in achieving their intended objectives and adjust the levels of
such credits based on the Exchange's observations of market participant
behavior. In this instance, the Exchange determined that the level of
the credit should be increased to provide a stronger incentive to
market participants to improve the market. The Exchange believes that
the proposed credit increase is equitable and is not unfairly
discriminatory it [sic] will apply to all member firms that achieve the
minimum level of Consolidated Volume required by the tier.
    The Exchange believes that reducing the credit for ``all other
orders'' from $0.0003 to $0.0001 is reasonable because the amount of
the new credit is more closely aligned to the requirements necessary to
qualify for the credit and the behavior that it is designed to
incentivize, especially given that the Exchange is limited in the
amount of credits that it provides to members. Unlike other credits the
Exchange offers for accessing liquidity, a member does not have to meet
any volume requirements in order to qualify for this credit. While the
Exchange does presently pay credits of $0.0015 and $0.0016 per share
executed for accessing liquidity, a member must also meet also meet
[sic] a volume threshold of accessing liquidity equal to or exceeding
0.05% or 0.10% of total Consolidated Volume during a month,
respectively. In contrast, the Exchange pays a credit of $0.0000 for an
order that receives price improvement and executes against an order
with a Non-displayed price, and for an order with Midpoint pegging that
removes liquidity. The Exchange believes that the new credit amount is
more closely aligned to the requirements for qualifying for that
credit, especially in comparison to the other credits offered by the
Exchange and their attendant requirements.
    The Exchange believes that the second proposed change is equitably
allocated among members, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination. BX notes that participation on the Exchange, and
eligibility for this credit, is voluntary, and that the Exchange
continues to offer other credits for which members may attempt to
qualify instead of the proposed credit. Additionally, the proposed
change to the credit amount applies to all members that otherwise
qualify for the credit.

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 terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable.

    In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its
fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative
trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the
statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are
free to modify their own fees in response, and because market
participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the
Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market
may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In this instance, the changes to credits do not impose a burden on
competition because participation in the Exchange is optional and is
the subject of competition from other exchanges. The proposed changes
to the credits are reflective of the Exchange's overall efforts to
provide greater incentives to market participants in the form of
credits for market participation it believes needs improvement to the
benefit of all participants. For these reasons, the Exchange does not
believe that any of the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets. Moreover, because there
are numerous competitive alternatives to the use of the Exchange, it is
likely that BX will lose market share as a result of the changes if
they are unattractive to market participants.
    Accordingly, BX does not believe that the proposed rule changes
will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues
to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.

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 foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BX-2017-050 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-050. 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. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2017-050 and should be
submitted on or before December 11, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25039 Filed 11-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 46)]
[Notices]
[Page 10569-10570]
[DOCID:fr11mr09-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-345-001]

The United Illuminating Company; Notice of Filing

March 2, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 23, 2009, the United Illuminating
Company (United Illuminating) filed additional information to its
November 23, 2008 proposed modifications to Schedule 21-UI of the ISO
New England Inc. Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff and
Localized Facilities for three United Illuminating transmission
projects from Category B Network Load, pursuant to the Commission's
Order issued January 23, 2009, see The United Illuminating Co., 126
FERC ] 61,063 (2009).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must
be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 16, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5216 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P