[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1414-1417]
[FR Doc No: 2012-341]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0917; FRL-9616-4]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to the Alaska
State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program (I/M) for control of carbon monoxide
(CO) in Anchorage. The State of Alaska (the State) submitted a
September 29, 2010, SIP modification that would discontinue the I/M
program in Anchorage as an active control measure in the SIP and shift
it to a contingency measure. EPA is approving the submittal because it
satisfies the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This action is effective on February 9, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-0917. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-
107, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. EPA requests that
you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vergnani Vaupel, (206) 553-
6121, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of
proposed rulemaking?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    The I/M program is a CO control measure in the Anchorage CO
maintenance plan that was Federally approved on June 23, 2004 (69 FR
34935). The State of Alaska submitted a September 29, 2010, SIP
modification discontinuing the I/M program in Anchorage as an active
control measure in the SIP and shifting it to a contingency measure.
EPA is approving the 2010 submittal because it satisfies the
requirements of the CAA.
    In accordance with the CAA and EPA redesignation guidance, states
may adjust control strategies in the maintenance plan as long as they
can demonstrate that the revision will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or
any other CAA requirements. See CAA sections 175A and 110(l). However,
section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that contingency measures in the
maintenance plan include all measures in the SIP for the area before
that area was redesignated to attainment.
    The SIP revision submitted by Alaska included a technical analysis
using EPA approved models and methods to demonstrate that the Anchorage
area would continue to maintain the CO standard without the I/M program
in place and that the revision would not interfere with attainment and
maintenance of the other NAAQS. The submittal also documented that
Anchorage will retain the legal authority necessary to implement the I/
M program as a contingency measure.
    On September 7, 2011, EPA proposed to approve the State's submittal
as meeting the requirements of the Act (76 FR 55325). For a more
detailed discussion of the background of this rulemaking, please see
EPA's notice of proposed approval. In this final action, EPA is
approving the SIP modifications to the Anchorage CO maintenance plan as
originally proposed in EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking.

II. What is our response to comments received on the notice of proposed
rulemaking?

    The public comment period for EPA's proposal to approve Alaska's
request closed on October 7, 2011. EPA received

128 comments. The following summarizes the issues raised in comments
and provides EPA's responses. The majority of comments supported the
proposed action to remove the I/M program as an active control measure
and move it to the contingency measures portion of the SIP. In general,
the comments opposed to the proposed action questioned the wisdom of
discontinuing a program that has a beneficial impact on the community.
Finally, additional comments suggested that EPA retain the I/M program
as an active control measure in the SIP because of air quality benefits
received by the program. As discussed in greater detail below, EPA
believes that many of these concerns fall outside of the scope of this
action.
    Comment: A number of commenters attributed the improvement in
Anchorage's air quality to the I/M program and expressed concern that
air quality in Anchorage would deteriorate once the I/M program is
discontinued. Some of these commenters expressed concerns such as
``smoke belcher vehicles'' becoming more common and deteriorating air
quality. Other commenters suggested requiring I/M for older vehicles.
Two commenters provided information on I/M test failures in Anchorage.
One commenter emphasized the importance of maintaining oxygen sensors.
This commenter expressed concern that ``the motorist may simply ignore
the light [malfunction indicator lamp/check engine light].'' One
commenter was concerned that the State's analysis did not include
``removal and modifications or just simple lack of maintenance'' and
that it did not ``reflect the rapid growth of [A]nchorage.'' These
comments all expressed concern regarding diminished air quality in the
absence of the I/M program.
    Response: In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet minimum criteria set by the CAA
or any applicable EPA regulations. The State's CAA section 110(l)
demonstration indicates that motor vehicle emissions are projected to
decline from current levels through 2023, even with the discontinuation
of the I/M program for all vehicles. In its submittal, the State
explains that the analysis was conducted ``[u]sing the best available
data and assumptions regarding growth in population, vehicle miles
traveled and trip starts'' and that the modeling analysis ``assumes
that the CO reductions provided by the I/M Program will be zero in 2011
and beyond.'' In its 2007-2023 emission projections, the State explains
that ``[a] great deal of effort was devoted to developing a credible
highway motor vehicle emissions inventory that reflected real world
conditions and driver behavior in Anchorage.'' The State's projections
demonstrate that Anchorage will maintain the CO standard through 2023.
The primary driver for the decline in CO emissions is the replacement
over time of older vehicles with newer, cleaner running vehicles. In
addition, the SIP includes a commitment to analyze air quality data to
verify continued attainment of the CO NAAQS (See 69 FR 25872).
Anchorage will retain the legal authority necessary to implement the I/
M program if needed as a contingency measure under the CO SIP or for
reasons unrelated to the requirements of the Federal CAA.
    EPA notes that air quality standards are set to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety and EPA has found that
approving the State's plan to remove the I/M program as an active
control measure in the Anchorage CO maintenance plan will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA believes that the
applicable criteria for approving discontinuation of the I/M program in
Anchorage have been met and therefore the revision should be approved.
    Comment: A number of comments, both opposing and supporting the
proposed action, identified benefits of the I/M program beyond the
control of CO and suggested alternatives to the I/M program. Some
commenters were concerned about vehicle safety and vehicle
modifications. One commenter explained seeing vehicles with ``panels
and hoods held together with duct tape, zipties, rivets, ratchet
straps, and baleen wire.'' Another commenter was concerned about noise
pollution from ``reduced muffler quality.'' Some commenters suggested
replacing the I/M program with a safety inspection program. One
commenter was concerned about the economic impacts of discontinuing the
I/M program as the industry may need to ``lay off some of its work
force'' which will have a ``ripple effect'' throughout the Anchorage
economy. One commenter who supported the proposal suggested that ``in
the spirit of clean air * * * [a] small increase in car registration
fees * * * go toward enhancing the city's public transportation.''
    Response: EPA recognizes that there may be ancillary benefits in a
community that coincide with I/M and transit programs. As noted above,
states have primary responsibility for deciding how to attain and
maintain the NAAQS. Under the CAA, the sole issue for EPA's
consideration in this rulemaking is whether removing the I/M program as
an active control measure for CO in the SIP would be consistent with
CAA provisions, including whether discontinuation is expected to
interfere with attainment and maintenance of air quality standards. EPA
is approving removal of the I/M program as an active control measure in
the CO SIP because removal is consistent with the requirements of the
CAA, including attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. Many of the
alternatives suggested by commenters may be considered and implemented
at the local level without EPA's review or approval.
    Comment: Two commenters suggested that discontinuation of the I/M
program should be immediate and not delayed by 6 months.
    Response: The commenters did not provide information identifying
the 6-month period they reference. EPA has not imposed a 6-month
waiting period on this SIP revision. EPA's approval of the revision to
remove the I/M program as an active control measure in the SIP will be
effective 30 days after the final rule is published. EPA believes the
commenters may be referring to local requirements, in which case the
issue is beyond the scope of this action. EPA is acting on the State's
submission, which is limited in scope to revisions to the existing SIP
for CO. Although Federal approval of the SIP modification is effective
within 30 days, local regulators may choose to continue the I/M program
after this date for reasons unrelated to Federal CAA requirements.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned that the State used the
MOBILE6.2 emissions model in its maintenance demonstration rather than
using EPA's most recent model, MOVES2010. The commenter ``calls on the
EPA to require the State of Alaska to re-submit the proposed rule
change relying on MOVES2010 to model emissions in Anchorage, Alaska.''
The commenter expressed concern that after March 2, 2012 (which is the
end of the MOVES2010 grace period for transportation conformity
analyses), future emissions modeling with MOVES2010 would cause
Anchorage to be ``out-of-compliance'' or ``in non-attainment'' for the
CO standard and that the I/M program could not be implemented quickly
enough at that time to qualify as a contingency measure.
    Response: On March 2, 2010, EPA released the MOVES2010 emission
model (see 75 FR 9411, March 2, 2010) and explained that ``[a]lthough
MOVES2010 should be used in SIP development as expeditiously as

possible, EPA also recognizes the time and effort that States have
already undertaken in SIP development using MOBILE6.2. SIPs that EPA
has already approved are not required to be revised solely based on
existence of the new model. States that have already submitted SIPs or
will submit SIPs shortly after EPA's approval of MOVES2010 are not
required to revise these SIPs simply because a new motor vehicle
emissions model is now available.'' \1\ Alaska's MOBILE6 modeling that
was used in support of its maintenance demonstration and in developing
the motor vehicle emissions budget was completed prior to March 2,
2010. Consistent with EPA's guidance on the topic, EPA finds that
Alaska's reliance on that modeling in its SIP submission was
appropriate under these circumstances. EPA concludes that this does not
constitute a basis for disapproval of the State's SIP proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA believes that this is supported by existing EPA policies
and case law [Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d. 296, 307-08 (DC Cir.
2004)].'' (Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State
Implementation Plan Development, Transportation Conformity, and
Other Purposes, December 2009, EPA-420-B-09-046)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the commenter's concern that Anchorage may be ``out-of-
compliance'' or ``in non-attainment'' on March 2, 2012, EPA reiterates
that SIPs that have already been approved do not need to be revised
solely as a result of the availability of the new model. Thus, EPA will
not be reevaluating its approval of this SIP revision after March 2,
2012.\2\ Furthermore, to the extent the commenter is suggesting that
Anchorage will be out of compliance with the NAAQS on March 2, 2012,
and subsequently designated nonattainment, EPA notes that compliance
with the CO standard in Anchorage will continue to be based on air
quality monitoring values. The end of the MOVES2010 grace period on
March 2, 2012, does not relate to the attainment status of the area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA notes that the State has subsequently submitted on
September 20, 2011, another CO SIP revision for Anchorage that
includes a re-analysis of the maintenance demonstration and motor
vehicle emission budget with the MOVES model. For EPA's review of
the whether the motor vehicle emissions budget in the SIP is
adequate for conformity purposes, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm#anch-ala. EPA's preliminary
review of this submission indicates that Alaska's MOVES modeling
does not contain information indicating that the area may not be
able to maintain the CO NAAQS throughout the maintenance period. EPA
will complete its review of this latest SIP submittal and commence
notice and comment rulemaking on that submittal in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter also expressed concern that the I/M program does not
qualify as a contingency measure because of the length of time it would
take to implement the program after it has been discontinued. EPA notes
that the contingency plan in the Anchorage CO SIP includes six
contingency measures available to the State with a schedule indicating
the time necessary to implement each contingency measure. The
implementation times range from 6 to 24 months and the State projected
it would take 12 to 24 months to reinstate the I/M program if that
measure were selected. The State's contingency plan explains that,
``[i]n the event monitoring data indicate that a violation of the
ambient CO standard has occurred, Anchorage would examine the data to
assess the spatial extent (i.e., hot spot versus region), severity and
time period of the episode as well as trends over time. Based on this
information, Anchorage, in consultation with ADEC [Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation], would determine which measure or measures
in Table III.B.7-1 to implement.'' CAA section 175A(d) of the Act
requires that a maintenance plan include such contingency provisions,
as EPA deems necessary, to promptly correct any violation of the
standard which occurs after the redesignation of the area. Thus,
Congress gave EPA discretion to evaluate and determine the contingency
measures EPA ``deems necessary.'' EPA has long exercised this
discretion in its rulemakings on CAA section 175A contingency measures
in maintenance plans, allowing as contingency measures commitments to
adopt and implement in lieu of fully adopted contingency measures, and
finding that implementation within 18-24 months of a violation complies
with the requirements of section 175A. EPA has properly determined here
that the State's contingency measures and schedules for implementation
satisfy the CAA's contingency plan requirements.
    Comment: One commenter was concerned about funding for air quality
monitoring. The commenter explained that air quality monitoring in the
Municipality of Anchorage is funded by the I/M program and an alternate
source of funding has not been identified.
    Response: EPA acknowledges that a portion of Anchorage's air
quality monitoring program has historically been funded by revenue
generated by the I/M program. However, Anchorage has recently passed a
budget that provides funding to support continuation of its air quality
monitoring program. Accordingly, EPA concludes that termination of the
I/M program as an active SIP control measure will not prevent Alaska
from having adequate resources to implement its SIP.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving revisions to the Alaska SIP that will remove the
I/M program as an active control measure for CO in the SIP and move it
to the contingency measures portion of the SIP. For the reasons
provided above and in our September 7, 2010, proposed rule, we are
approving Alaska's SIP revision that removes the I/M program as an
active control measure for CO in Anchorage and moves it to the
contingency measures portion of the SIP as originally proposed.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 12, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 28, 2011.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart C--Alaska

0
2. Section 52.73 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.73  Approval of plan.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) EPA approves as a revision to the Alaska State Implementation
Plan, the Anchorage Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan (Volume II
Sections II, III.A and III.B of the State Air Quality Control Plan
adopted August 20, 2010, effective October 29, 2010, and Volume III of
the Appendices adopted August 20, 2010, effective October 29, 2010)
submitted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation on
September 29, 2010
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-341 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68107-68108]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0564; Special Conditions No. 25-XXX-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Model Falcon 900EX Airplane;
Electronic System-Security Protection From Unauthorized External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Dassault Model Falcon
900EX airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design
feature associated with electronic system-security protection from
unauthorized external access. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective December 15, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington, 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile (425) 227-
1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On March 20, 2013, Dassault Aircraft Services applied for a type
certificate for their new Model 900EX airplane.
    The Dassault Falcon 900EX is a business jet with seating for up to
19 passengers. Three Allied Signal TFE 731-60-1C engines power the
airplane, which has a maximum takeoff weight of 49,000 pounds.
    Contemporary transport-category airplanes have both safety-related
and non-safety-related electronic system networks for many operational
functions. However, electronic system-network-security considerations
and functions have played a relatively minor role in the certification
of such systems because of the isolation, protection mechanisms, and
limited connectivity between the different networks.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending

written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a
specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Type Certification Basis

    Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17,
Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 900EX airplane meets the
applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1
through 25-129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model Falcon 900EX airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model Falcon 900EX airplane must comply with the fuel-
vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue
a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-
574, the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    The digital systems architecture for the Dassault Model Falcon
900EX airplane is composed of several connected networks. This network
architecture is used for a diverse set of functions, providing data
connectivity between systems, including:
    1. Airplane control, communication, display, monitoring and
navigation systems,
    2. Operator business and administrative support systems,
    3. Passenger entertainment systems, and
    4. Access by systems external to the airplane.

Discussion

    The Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane network architecture and
configuration may allow increased connectivity to, and access from,
external network sources, and operator operations and maintenance
networks to the airplane control domain and operator-information-
services domain. The airplane-control domain and operator-information-
services domain perform functions required for the safe operation and
maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited
connectivity with external network sources. The network architecture
and configuration may allow the exploitation of network-security
vulnerabilities resulting in intentional or unintentional destruction,
disruption, degradation, or exploitation of data, systems, and networks
critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.
    The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate
these types of airplane system architectures. Furthermore, 14 CFR
regulations and current system-safety assessment policy and techniques
do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be
exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and
servers. Therefore, these special conditions are to ensure that
unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections do not compromise
the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of
airplane systems.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to the Dassault
Model Falcon 900EX airplane. Should Dassault apply later for a change
to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to
that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplane. It is not a rule of
general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type-certification basis for Dassault Model Falcon 900EX airplanes.
    1. The applicant must ensure airplane electronic system-security
protection from access by unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity.
    2. The applicant must ensure that electronic system-security
threats are identified and assessed, and that effective electronic
system-security protection strategies are implemented to protect the
airplane from all adverse impacts on safety, functionality, and
continued airworthiness.
    3. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the
operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is
maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that
may have an impact on the approved electronic system-security
safeguards.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 5, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-26819 Filed 11-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18294]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7813]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review;
Kissimmee Gateway Airport, Kissimmee, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is
reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program that was submitted for
Kissimmee Gateway Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47504 et
seq. (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act hereinafter referred
to as ``the Act'') and 14 CFR Part 150 by the City of Kissimmee. This
program was submitted subsequent to a determination by FAA that the
associated Noise Exposure Maps submitted under 14 CFR Part 150 for
Kissimmee Gateway Airport were in compliance with applicable
requirements effective 12/11/09, and was published in the Federal
Register on 12/29/09. The proposed Noise Compatibility Program will be
approved or disapproved on or before September 27, 2011.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the start of FAA's review
of the associated Noise Compatibility Program is April 1, 2011. The
public comment period ends May 30, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Allan Nagy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments on the proposed Noise Compatibility Program should also be
submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing a proposed Noise Compatibility Program for Kissimmee Gateway
Airport which will be approved or disapproved on or before September
27, 2011. This notice also announces the availability of this program
for public review and comment.
    An airport operator who has submitted Noise Exposure Maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Title 14 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, may submit a Noise Compatibility
Program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has
taken or proposes to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent
the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has formally received the Noise Compatibility Program for
Kissimmee Gateway Airport, effective on April 1, 2011. The airport
operator has requested that the FAA review this material and that the
noise mitigation measures, to be implemented jointly by the airport and
surrounding communities, be approved as a Noise Compatibility Program
under Section 47504 of the Act. Preliminary review of the submitted
material indicates that it conforms to the requirements for the
submittal of Noise Compatibility Programs, but that further review will
be necessary prior to approval or disapproval of the program. The
formal review period, limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be
completed on or before September 27, 2011.
    The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the
provisions of 14 CFR Part 150, Sec.  150.33. The primary considerations
in the evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce
the level of aviation safety or create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, and whether they are reasonably consistent with
obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible land uses and
preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments relating to
these factors, other than those properly addressed to local land use
authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the extent practicable.
Copies of the Noise Exposure Maps, the FAA's evaluation of the maps,
and the proposed Noise Compatibility Program are available for
examination at the following locations: Federal Aviation
Administration, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine
National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida 32822.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on March 28, 2011.
Bart Vernace,
Acting Manager, Orlando Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2011-7813 Filed 3-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7998-8001]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03956]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0631; FRL-9990-32-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; NOX SIP Call and CAIR

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to conditionally approve a portion of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) with a
letter dated February 27, 2017, to establish a SIP-approved state
control program to comply with the obligations of the Nitrogen Oxides
(NOX) SIP Call with respect to certain sources. EPA is also
taking final action to fully approve the remaining portion of the same
Tennessee SIP revision to remove the SIP-approved portions of the
State's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) Program rules from the
Tennessee SIP. In addition, EPA is also fully approving a revision to
the Tennessee SIP submitted with a letter dated April 3, 2018, to
remove regulations related to a previous NOX trading
program.

DATES: This rule will be effective April 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0631. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madolyn Sanchez, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Sanchez
can be reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Under Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
EPA has traditionally termed the good neighbor provision, states are
required to address the interstate transport of air pollution.
Specifically, the good neighbor provision requires that each state's
implementation plan contain adequate provisions to prohibit air
pollutant emissions from within the state that significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),
or that interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS, in any other state.
    In October 1998 (63 FR 57356), EPA finalized the ``Finding of
Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for Certain States in the Ozone
Transport Assessment Group Region for Purposes of Reducing Regional
Transport of Ozone''--commonly called the ``NOX SIP Call.''
The NOX SIP Call addressed the good neighbor provision for
the 1979 1-hour ozone NAAQS and was designed to mitigate the impact of
transported NOX emissions, one of the precursors of
ozone.\1\ The rule originally required 22 states--including Tennessee--
and the District of Columbia to amend their SIPs to reduce
NOX emissions that contribute to ozone nonattainment in
downwind states. EPA developed the NOX Budget Trading
Program, an allowance trading program that states could adopt to meet
their obligations under the NOX SIP Call. The NOX
Budget Trading Program allowed certain types of sources to participate
in a regional NOX cap and trade program: generally electric
generating units (EGUs) greater than 25 megawatts (MW); and industrial
non-electric generating units, such as boilers and turbines, with a
rated heat input greater than 250 million British thermal units per
hour

(MMBtu/hr), referred to as ``large non-EGUs.'' \2\ On January 22, 2004,
EPA approved into the Tennessee SIP the State's NOX Budget
Trading Program rule.\3\ The NOX Budget Trading Program was
implemented from 2003 to 2008, and in 2009 it was effectively replaced
by the ozone season NOX program under CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998). As originally
promulgated, the NOX SIP Call also addressed good
neighbor obligations under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but EPA
subsequently stayed the rule's provisions with respect to that
standard. 40 CFR 51.121(q).
    \2\ The NOX SIP Call also identified potential
emissions reductions from other non-EGUs, including cement kilns and
stationary internal combustion (IC) engines.
    \3\ See 69 FR 3015 (January 22, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 12, 2005 (70 FR 25162), EPA promulgated CAIR to address
transported emissions that would significantly contribute to downwind
states' nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. CAIR required SIP
revisions in 28 states--including Tennessee--and the District of
Columbia to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/or
NOX, precursors of PM2.5 (SO2 and
NOX) and ozone (NOX). Under CAIR, EPA developed
separate cap-and-trade programs for annual NOX, ozone season
NOX, and annual SO2 emissions. On April 28, 2006
(71 FR 25328), EPA also promulgated federal implementation plans (FIPs)
requiring the EGUs greater than 25 MW in each affected state, but not
large non-EGUs, to participate in the CAIR trading programs. An
affected state could comply with the requirements of CAIR either by
remaining under the FIP, which applied only to EGUs, or by submitting a
CAIR SIP revision that achieved the required emission reductions from
EGUs and/or other types of sources. States had the further option to
remain subject to the CAIR FIP generally, but also adopt
``abbreviated'' CAIR SIP provisions that made certain modifications to
the trading programs by allocating allowances among covered units,
allowing units to opt-in to the trading programs, or expanding
applicability of the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program
to the non-EGUs that formerly participated in the NOX Budget
Trading Program under the NOX SIP Call.
    On August 20, 2007, EPA approved into the Tennessee SIP an
abbreviated CAIR SIP revision with allowance allocation and opt-in
provisions.\4\ On November 25, 2009, EPA approved into the Tennessee
SIP a further abbreviated CAIR SIP revision expanding applicability of
the CAIR ozone season NOX trading program to NOX
SIP Call non-EGUs.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 72 FR 46388 (August 20, 2007).
    \5\ See 74 FR 61535 (November 25, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA discontinued administration of the NOX Budget
Trading Program in 2009 upon the start of the CAIR trading programs.
The NOX SIP Call requirements continued to apply, however,
and EGUs that formerly participated in the NOX Budget
Trading Program in almost all states continued to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirements under the generally more stringent
requirements of the CAIR ozone season trading program. States needed to
assess their NOX SIP Call requirements and take other
regulatory action as necessary to ensure that their obligations for the
large non-EGUs continued to be met either through submission of a CAIR
SIP or other NOX regulation. EPA has implementing
regulations for the NOX SIP Call at 40 CFR 51.121.
    On December 23, 2008, CAIR was remanded to EPA by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008), modified on rehearing, 550
F.3d 1176. This ruling allowed CAIR to remain in effect until a new
interstate transport rule consistent with the Court's opinion was
developed. While EPA worked on developing a new rule to address the
interstate transport of air pollution, the CAIR program continued to be
implemented with the NOX annual and ozone season programs
beginning in 2009 and the SO2 annual program beginning in
2010.
    EPA issued the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) in July 2011
to replace CAIR \6\ and address the requirements of the good neighbor
provision for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 1997 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. As amended
(including by the 2016 CSAPR Update, which addressed good neighbor
requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS), CSAPR currently requires
27 Eastern states--including Tennessee--to limit their statewide
emissions of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate
transported air pollution impacting other states' ability to attain or
maintain the previously-listed NAAQS. As a mechanism for achieving
compliance with the emissions limitations, CSAPR establishes five
federal emissions trading programs: A program for annual NOX
emissions, two geographically separate programs for annual
SO2 emissions, and two geographically separate programs for
ozone-season NOX emissions. Currently, through FIP
provisions established in CSAPR and subsequent SIP revisions from
various states, each affected state's units are required to participate
in up to three of the five CSAPR trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Implementation of CAIR was formally sunset upon the
implementation of CSAPR, which--because of extended litigation--was
delayed until 2015. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) and 81 FR
13275 (March 14, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CSAPR trading programs for annual NOX, annual
SO2, and ozone season NOX are applicable to the
large EGUs (i.e., EGUs that are greater than 25 MW) in each covered
state, and a state may also expand trading program applicability to
include certain smaller EGUs. Under CSAPR as originally promulgated,
states could not expand the applicability under CSAPR's ozone season
NOX trading program to include non-EGUs that formerly
participated in the NOX Budget Trading Program. Starting in
2017, with implementation of the CSAPR Update, states once again have
this option, as they did under CAIR.
    With respect to Tennessee, large EGUs in Tennessee are currently
subject to three of the CSAPR trading programs, including one
addressing ozone season NOX emissions. Tennessee has not
chosen to expand CSAPR applicability to small EGUs or non-EGUs.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on December 17,
2018 (83 FR 64497), EPA proposed to conditionally approve the portion
of a February 27, 2017, SIP revision to add Tennessee Comprehensive
Rules and Regulation (TCRR) 1200-03-27-.12--``NOX SIP Call
Requirements for Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines'' (except
paragraph 1200-03-27-.12(7)(b)4.) to the Tennessee SIP,\7\ which
establishes a state control program to comply with the obligations of
the NOX SIP Call, as clarified in a July 24, 2018,
letter.\8\ EPA stated that approval of this portion of the February 27,
2017, SIP revision would be conditioned on Tennessee submitting by
December 31, 2019, a complete SIP revision amending the rule's

applicability provisions to cover certain potential new units as
discussed in section II.A. of the NPRM, consistent with the State's
commitment in letters to EPA dated May 11, 2018, and October 11,
2018.\9\ In addition, EPA proposed to fully approve the portion of the
February 27, 2017, SIP submission to remove the SIP-approved portions
of the State's CAIR trading program rules from the Tennessee SIP at
TCRR 1200-03-14-.04--``CAIR SO2 Annual Trading Program,''
1200-03-27-.10--``CAIR NOX Annual Trading Program,'' and
1200-03-27-.11--``CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.''
Further, EPA proposed to fully approve an April 3, 2018, SIP revision
to remove a previous NOX SIP Call trading program at TCRR
1200-03-27-.06--``NOX Budget Trading Program for State
Implementation Plans.'' The details of Tennessee's submissions and the
rationale for EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM. Comments on the
proposed rulemaking were due on or before January 16, 2019. EPA did not
receive any comments on the proposed action. EPA is now taking final
action consistent with its proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ TCRR 1200-03-27-.12(7)(b) specifies additional reporting and
recordkeeping requirements related to each facility, which require
the facility to report its emissions and to generally maintain
records for at least five years. The February 27, 2018 SIP
submission contains paragraph 1200-3-27-.12(7)(b)4 that requires
sources to report to the Tennessee Division of Air Pollution
Control, in addition to EPA. However, as reporting to EPA continues
to be required for sources, Tennessee withdrew 1200-3-27-.12(7)(b)4
from the February 27, 2018 submission in a July 24, 2018 letter
(hereinafter ``the July 24, 2018 Letter''). As a result, EPA is not
acting on the withdrawn paragraph.
    \8\ The July 24, 2018 Letter clarifies that, consistent with
TCRR 1200-03-27-.12(6)(a), the State interprets TCRR 1200-03-
27-.12(6)(d) to require that any adjusted allowance allocation
amounts for existing affected units under 1200-03-27.12(6)(d) be
submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP revision to be incorporated
into the SIP prior to allocation. EPA's action on Tennessee's SIP is
therefore based on the clarification of the State's interpretation
of this provision as explained in the July 24, 2018 Letter.
    \9\ On May 11, 2018, Tennessee submitted a commitment letter
requesting conditional approval of the 2017 NOX SIP Call
Rule and committing to provide a SIP revision to EPA by April 30,
2019, that addresses the deficiency discussed in Section II.A. of
the NPRM by revising the definition of ``affected unit'' to remove
the unqualified exclusion for any unit that serves a generator that
produces power for sale. In a letter dated October 11, 2018,
Tennessee revised the commitment date from April 30, 2019, to
December 31, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of TCRR 1200-03-
27-.12--``NOX SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers
and Combustion Turbines'' (with the exception of paragraph 1200-3-
27-.12(7)(b)4.), state effective February 19, 2017, which establishes a
state control program to comply with the obligations of the
NOX SIP Call. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    As described above and in the NPRM, EPA is conditionally approving
the portion of the February 27, 2017, SIP revision to add TCRR 1200-03-
27-.12--``NOX SIP Call Requirements for Stationary Boilers
and Combustion Turbines'' (except paragraph 1200-03-27-.12(7)(b)4.) to
the Tennessee SIP, as clarified in the July 24, 2018 Letter. Approval
of this portion of the February 27, 2017, SIP revision is conditioned
on Tennessee submitting by December 31, 2019, a complete SIP revision
amending the rule's applicability provisions to cover certain potential
new units as discussed in section II.A. of the NPRM, consistent with
the State's commitment. In addition, EPA is approving the portion of
the February 27, 2017 SIP submission to remove the SIP-approved
portions of the State's CAIR trading program rules from the Tennessee
SIP at TCRR 1200-03-14-.04--``CAIR SO2 Annual Trading
Program,'' 1200-03-27-.10--``CAIR NOX Annual Trading
Program,'' and 1200-03-27-.11--``CAIR NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program.'' Further, EPA is approving the April 3, 2018, SIP
revision to remove a previous NOX SIP Call trading program
at TCRR 1200-03-27-.06--``NOX Budget Trading Program for
State Implementation Plans.''

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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. These actions merely
approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and do not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, these actions:
     Are not significant regulatory actions 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);
     Are not Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory actions because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not economically significant regulatory actions based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory actions subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Do 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).
    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this

action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by May 6, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: February 20, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2219 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2219  Conditional approval.

    Tennessee submitted a SIP revision on February 27, 2017, to add
TCRR 1200-03-27-.12--``NOX SIP Call Requirements for
Stationary Boilers and Combustion Turbines'' (except paragraph 1200-03-
27-.12(7)(b)4.) to the Tennessee SIP, which establishes a state control
program to comply with the obligations of the NOX SIP Call.
In letters dated May 11, 2018 and October 11, 2018, Tennessee committed
to submit, by December 31, 2019, a complete SIP revision amending the
rule's applicability provisions to cover certain potential new units.
EPA conditionally approved the portion of the February 27, 2017, SIP
revision to add TCRR 1200-03-27-.12 to the SIP in an action published
in the Federal Register on March 6, 2019 based on this commitment. If
Tennessee fails to meet its commitment by December 31, 2019, the
conditional approval will become a disapproval and EPA will issue a
notice to that effect.
0
3. Section 52.2220(c) Table 1 is amended:
0
a. Under CHAPTER 1200-3-14 by removing the entry for ``Section 1200-3-
14-.04'', and
0
b. Under CHAPTER 1200-3-27 by:
0
i. Removing the entries for ``Section 1200-3-27-.06'', ``Section 1200-
3-27-.10'', and ``Section 1200-3-27-.11''; and
0
ii. Adding an entry in numerical order for ``Section 1200-3-27-.12''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        State citation               Title/subject      effective date  EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        CHAPTER 1200-3-27 Nitrogen Oxides
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-27-.12.........  NOX SIP Call                   2/19/17  3/6/19 [Insert     With the exception of
                                 Requirements for                        Federal Register   paragraph 1200-3-27-
                                 Stationary Boilers                      citation].         .12(7)(b)4. The
                                 and Combustion                                             remainder of Section
                                 Turbines.                                                  1200-3-27-.12 is
                                                                                conditionally
                                                                                approved through
                                                                                December 31, 2019.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-03956 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 67284]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28302]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9986-77]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Chemical Abstracts
Service

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor, Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) of Columbus, OH, to access information which has been submitted
to EPA under sections 5 and 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Some of the information may be claimed or determined to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data occurred on or about 1 November
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Recie Reese, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

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

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under EPA contract number 68HERH19C0002, contractor CAS of 2540
Olentangy River Rd., P.O. Box 3012, Columbus, OH, is assisting the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by providing technical
assistance in developing and operating the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory. They will also assist in determining whether the substances
described in the submissions received are already found on the TSCA
Inventory; and review and/or provide the chemical names for the
substances being reviewed. This is a new contract that continues work
initiated under Contract Number EP-W-13-008. This is a renewal of a
long existing contract with CAS.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number 68HERH19C0002, CAS required access to CBI submitted
to EPA under sections 5 and 8 of TSCA to perform successfully the
duties specified under the contract. CAS personnel were given access to
information submitted to EPA under sections 5 and 8 of TSCA. Some of
the information may be claimed or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under sections 5 and 8 of TSCA that EPA has provided CAS access to
these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis only. All access to TSCA
CBI under this contract is taking place at EPA Headquarters and CAS'
site located at 2540 Olentangy River Rd., Columbus, OH, in accordance
with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until October 31,
2023. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    CAS personnel have signed nondisclosure agreements and were briefed
on appropriate security procedures before they were permitted access to
TSCA CBI.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 30, 2018.
Pamela S. Myrick,
Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2018-28302 Filed 12-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 64772-64774]
[DOCID:fr08de09-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61085; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
to the Nasdaq Rule 4000 and 5000 Series To Correct Certain Citations to
Renumbered Rules

December 1, 2009.
    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 23, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. Nasdaq has designated the proposed
rule change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule
19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq proposes to correct certain citations in the Rule 4000 and
5000 Series that currently cite to rules that have been renumbered.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com/, at NASDAQ's principal office, 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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is proposing to update rule cross-references found in the
Rule 4000 and 5000 Series, which are no longer accurate due to
renumbering of the cited rules. On March 12, 2009, Nasdaq filed a
proposed rule change to revise the rules relating to the qualification,
listing, and delisting of companies listed on, or applying to list on,
Nasdaq to improve the organization of the rules, eliminate redundancies
and simplify the rule language.\4\ These rules (the ``New Listing
Rules'') were operative April 13, 2009, and resulted in the relocation
of Nasdaq's listing rules from the Rule 4000 Series to the Rule 5000
Series of the Nasdaq rulebook, without changing the substance of those
rules. Nasdaq inadvertently failed to change certain cross-references
in Rules 4120 and 7018 to reflect this move. Accordingly, Nasdaq is
proposing to update the cross-references with accurate citations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59663 (March 31, 2009),
74 FR 15552 (April 6, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq has also observed that a cross-reference to a FINRA rule
found in Rule 5210(h) is no longer accurate due to FINRA renumbering
prior NASD Rule 2810 as it was adopted into the FINRA consolidated
rulebook. Rule 2810 was renumbered by FINRA to new Rule 2310 with no
material changes.\5\ As a consequence, Nasdaq is proposing to update
Rule 5210(h) with the correct citation to FINRA Rule 2310.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59987 (May 27, 2009), 74
FR 26902 (June 4, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\6\ in general and with Sections
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change is
consistent with these provisions in that it will eliminate confusion
about Nasdaq rules by updating inaccurate cross-references to rules
that have been renumbered, without changing the substance of those
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq 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.

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

    Because the foregoing 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, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\9\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Nasdaq believes
that the proposed rule change does not significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest because it merely
corrects cross-references to rules that have been renumbered. In each
instance, the cross-referenced rule was not materially changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq requests that the Commission waive the 30-day pre-operative
waiting period contained in Exchange Act Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). Nasdaq
requests this waiver so that the corrected citations can be immediately
operative, eliminating any potential confusion caused by the currently
invalid citations.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will eliminate confusion caused by the currently invalid
citations.\10\ Application of the new rules should help foster
consistency in the rulebook and promote clarity for market participants
relying upon the rulebook. For these reasons, the Commission designates
that the proposed rule change become immediately operative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-101 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-101. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
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 publicly available. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-101 and should be submitted on or before
December 29, 2009.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29129 Filed 12-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 41)]
[Notices]
[Page 9631]
[DOCID:fr03mr10-95]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

In the Matter of Primegen Energy Corp.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

March 1, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
PrimeGen Energy Corporation (``PrimeGen'') because of questions
regarding the accuracy of publicly disseminated information concerning,
among other things, the company's current financial condition,
management, and business operations. PrimeGen is quoted on the Pink
Sheets under the symbol ``PGNE.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in securities of the
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on
March 1, 2010, through 11:59 p.m. EST, on March 12, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-4502 Filed 3-1-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67699-67701]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27493]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68168; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Amendments to the EDGA Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule

November 6, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 1, 2012, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its fees and rebates applicable to
Members \3\ of the Exchange pursuant to EDGA Rule 15.1(a) and (c). All
of the changes described herein are applicable to EDGA Members. The
text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    In Footnote 8 of the fee schedule that is appended to Flag SW., the
Exchange proposes to assess a fee of $0.0025 per share in lieu of the
current fee of $0.0023 per share for Members' orders that are routed
using the SWPA, SWPB or SWPC routing strategies \4\ and remove
liquidity from the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''), yielding Flag D.
This proposed change represents a pass-through of the rate that Direct
Edge ECN LLC d/b/a DE Route (``DE Route''), the Exchange's affiliated
routing broker dealer, is charged for routing orders to NYSE, in
response to the pricing changes in NYSE's filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'').\5\ Accordingly, the Exchange
proposes to delete the reference to the fee of $0.0023 per share in
Footnote 8 because the rate for Flag D is $0.0025 per share. Therefore,
the Exchange will assess a charge of $0.0025 for Members' orders that
are routed using the SWPA, SWPB or SWPC routing strategies and remove
liquidity from NYSE, yielding Flag D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As defined in Exchange Rules 11.9(b)(3)(o), (p) and (q).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 68021 (October 9, 2012),
77 FR 63406 (October 16, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Footnote 3 of the fee schedule that is appended to Flags C, D,
J, L and 2, the Exchange proposes to assess a fee of 0.30% of the
dollar value of the transaction in lieu of the current fee of $0.0023
per share for stocks priced below $1.00 that are routed or re-routed to
NYSE and remove liquidity, yielding Flag D.\6\ This proposed change now
represents a pass-through of the rate that DE Route is charged for
routing orders to NYSE that remove liquidity.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange does not propose to amend the rates for stocks
priced below $1.00 that are routed to Nasdaq OMX BX (``BX'') or
NASDAQ, yielding Flags C, J, L and 2, as described in Footnote 3 of
the fee schedule.
    \7\ Prior to March 1, 2012, the NYSE Price List generally
specified that the applicable rate was the lesser of (i) 0.30% of
the total dollar value of the transaction and (ii) $0.0023 per
share. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66600, (March 14,
2012), 77 FR 16298 (March 20, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-07). Effective
March 1, 2012, the rate for these transactions with a per-share
price of less than $1.00 is now 0.3% of the total dollar value of
the transaction.

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

    On Flag RS, the Exchange proposes to offer a rebate of $0.0026 per
share \8\ in lieu of the current rebate of $0.0016 per share for orders
that are routed to the Nasdaq OMX PSX (``PSX'') and add liquidity. This
proposed change represents a pass-through of the rebate that DE Route
receives for routing orders to PSX, in response to recent pricing
changes in PSX's filing with the SEC.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that it is passing through the standard
rebate of $0.0026 per share even though it possibly can achieve a
tiered rebate of $0.0028 per share if it meets certain criteria.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 68052 (October 12,
2012), 77 FR 64170 (October 18, 2012) (SR-PHLX-2012-119).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange charges Members a rate of $0.0027 per share
for orders that are routed to PSX using the ROUC or ROUE routing
strategies,\10\ yielding Flag K. The Exchange proposes to increase the
rate to $0.0028 per share for orders that yield Flag K in response to
recent pricing changes in PSX's filing with the SEC.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As defined in Exchange Rules 11.9(b)(3)(a) and (c).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 68052 (October 12,
2012), 77 FR 64170 (October
    18, 2012) (SR-PHLX-2012-119).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes adding the title ``EdgeBook Depth Fees'' to
the fee schedule describing the fees for the EdgeBook Depth A to
increase the transparency of the fee schedule for Members.
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule on November 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as the
proposed rule changes are designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among the
Exchange's Members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rate change in Footnote 8 associated with routing
orders to NYSE through DE Route on the Exchange's fee schedule is a
pass-through rate from DE Route to the Exchange and from the Exchange,
in turn, to its Members. The Exchange's proposal represents an
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
Members of the Exchange and other persons using its facilities because
the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates
for orders that it routes to NYSE through DE Route. The Exchange notes
that routing through DE Route is voluntary. Currently, in Footnote 8,
for orders yielding Flag D that use the SWPA, SWPB, or SWPC routing
strategies and remove liquidity from NYSE, NYSE charged DE Route a fee
of $0.0023 per share, which, in turn, was passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange, in turn, charged its Members a fee of $0.0023
per share as a pass-through. On October 1, 2012, NYSE increased the
rate it charges its customers, such as DE Route, from $0.0023 per share
to a charge of $0.0025 per share for orders that are routed or re-
routed to NYSE and remove liquidity. Therefore, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change in Footnote 8 from a fee of $0.0023 per share
to a fee of $0.0025 per share is equitable and reasonable because it
accounts for the pricing changes on NYSE. In addition, the proposal
allows the Exchange to continue to charge its Members a pass-through
rate for orders that are routed or re-routed to NYSE and remove
liquidity using DE Route. Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it applies uniformly
to all Members.
    The proposed rate change in Footnote 3 associated with routing
orders to NYSE through DE Route now represents a pass-through rate from
DE Route to the Exchange and from the Exchange, in turn, to its
Members. The Exchange's proposal represents an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members of the Exchange
and other persons using its facilities because the Exchange does not
levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for orders that it
routes to NYSE through DE Route. The Exchange notes that routing
through DE Route is voluntary. For stocks priced below $1.00 that are
routed or re-routed to NYSE and remove liquidity, DE Route charged its
Members a fee of $0.0023 per share.\14\ NYSE modified the rate it
charged its customers, such as DE Route, effective March 2012, to a
charge of 0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction \15\ for stocks
priced below $1.00 that remove liquidity. Therefore, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change in Footnote 3 from a fee of $0.0023
per share to a fee of 0.30% of the dollar value of the transaction is
equitable and reasonable because it allows the Exchange to now charge
its Members a pass-through rate for orders that are routed or re-routed
to NYSE and remove liquidity using DE Route. Lastly, the Exchange also
believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because it
applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Prior to March 1, 2012, the NYSE Price List generally
specified that the applicable rate was the lesser of (i) 0.30% of
the total dollar value of the transaction and (ii) $0.0023 per
share. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66600, (March 14,
2012), 77 FR 16298 (March 20, 2012) (SR-NYSE-2012-07). Effective
March 1, 2012, the rate for these transactions with a per-share
price of less than $1.00 is now 0.3% of the total dollar value of
the transaction.
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rate change for Flag RS associated with routing orders
to PSX through DE Route on the Exchange's fee schedule is a pass-
through rate from DE Route to the Exchange and from the Exchange, in
turn, to its Members. The Exchange's proposal represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among Members of
the Exchange and other persons using its facilities because the
Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer additional rebates for
orders that it routes to PSX through DE Route. The Exchange notes that
routing through DE Route is voluntary. Currently, for orders yielding
Flag RS, PSX offers DE Route a rebate of $0.0016 per share, which, in
turn, is passed through to the Exchange. The Exchange, in turn, offers
its Members a rebate of $0.0016 per share as a pass-through. On October
1, 2012, PSX increased the rebate it offers its customers, such as DE
Route, from $0.0016 per share to a rebate of $0.0026 per share\16\ for
orders that are routed to PSX and add liquidity. Therefore, the
Exchange believes that the proposed change for Flag RS from a rebate of
$0.0016 per share to a rebate of $0.0026 per share is equitable and
reasonable because it accounts for the pricing changes on PSX. In
addition, the proposal allows the Exchange to continue to charge its
Members a pass-through of the standard rebate\17\ for orders that are
routed to PSX and add liquidity using DE Route. Lastly, the Exchange
also believes that the proposed amendment is non-discriminatory because
it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Exchange notes that it is passing through the standard
rebate of $0.0026 per share even though it possibly can achieve a
tiered rebate of $0.0028 per share if it meets certain criteria.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend the rate for Flag
K represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities. DE
Route is charged either a fee of $0.0028 per share or $0.0030 per share
depending on the routing strategy employed.\18\ Because

the Exchange does not distinguish between ROUC and ROUE when yielding
Flag K, the Exchange proposes to assess a charge of $0.0028 per share
for Members orders that are routed to PSX using either ROUC or ROUE,
which represents the more favorable of the two rates for its Members.
The Exchange's proposal to offer its Members the more favorable of two
rates is also equitable because it is similar to the rates associated
with Flag C, where the Exchange offers Members the more favorable
rebate of $0.0014 per share for orders routed to BX that remove
liquidity regardless of whether the Member achieves the tiered volume
necessary to exceed the default rebate of $0.0005 per share.\19\ In
addition, the rate of $0.0028 per share for Flag K is also reasonable
because it is similar to the rates charged by PSX for orders routed to
its exchange, where PSX assesses charges between $0.0028 per share and
$0.0030 per share depending on the routing strategy employed.\20\
Lastly, the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See NASDAQ OMX PSX, Price List--Trading and Connectivity,
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PSX_pricing.
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 67980 (October 4,
2012), 77 FR 61800 (October
    11, 2012) (SR-EDGA-2012-45).
    \20\ See NASDAQ OMX PSX, Price List--Trading and Connectivity,
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PSX_pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to add the title ``EdgeBook Depth Fees'' to
the fee schedule increases transparency on the fee schedule for Members
and does not represent any change in EdgeBook Depth fees.
    The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rates are
equitable and non-discriminatory in that they apply uniformly to all
Members. The Exchange believes the fees and credits remain competitive
with those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to Members.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \22\ thereunder. At
any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGA-2012-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-46. 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-EDGA-2012-46 and should be
submitted on or before December 4, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27493 Filed 11-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P