[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49663-49667]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0673; FRL-9999-17-Region 6]

Air Plan Approval; Texas; Infrastructure for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving elements of two
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Texas for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). These
submittals address how the existing SIP provides for implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (infrastructure
SIP or i-SIP).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2018-0673. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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 https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 Office, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500,
Dallas, Texas 75270.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carrie Paige, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, Dallas, TX
75270,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment with Ms. Paige or Mr. Bill
Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our April
30, 2019 proposal (84 FR 18186). In that document we proposed to
approve the August 17, 2018 i-SIP submittal from the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS in its
entirety. We also proposed to approve the portions of the August 17,
2018 Transport submittal from the TCEQ for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that
address CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), pertaining to the prevention of
significant deterioration in other states for ozone (sub-element 3 or
prong 3), and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Our proposal did not
evaluate the portions of the August 17, 2018 Transport submittal from
the TCEQ for the 2015 ozone NAAQS that address sub-elements (prongs) 1,
2, and 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), but stated that we would
address such in a separate action.
    We received one comment in support of our proposal and one relevant
adverse comment. The comments are posted in the docket for this action.
Our responses to the comments are provided below.

II. Response to Comments

    Comment: The TCEQ submitted a comment in support of EPA's proposed
determination that the Texas SIP meets the infrastructure requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as proposed, and reiterated that prongs 1, 2,
and 4 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed by the EPA in a
separate rulemaking.
    Response: We acknowledge the TCEQ's support of our proposed action.
    We received one adverse, relevant comment letter from an anonymous
source (``Commenter''). We are separating the comments and our
responses to each below:
    Comment: Commenter asks how the visibility portion of CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) ``can be approved'' if Texas's visibility portion of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) ``cannot be approved.'' Commenter
also states that EPA must take consistent action on both visibility
elements and either approve or disapprove both. Commenter states that
EPA cannot take later separate action on one and state that no new
requirements are applicable in element (J) when there is a new or
revised NAAQS. Commenter questions why states must submit
infrastructure SIPs if a new or revised NAAQS requires no new
visibility obligations triggered under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) and,
for all other elements, potentially excluding elements (A), (B), (C),
and (D)(i)(I), no additional requirements or obligations are placed on
states. The commenter asks that if states must revise their SIP for
elements (E) through (M), and potentially (A) through (D)(i)(I), why
would visibility requirements of element (J) be exempt from this
process. The commenter states that EPA must require Texas to address
the visibility portion of element (J) unless EPA is willing to exempt
other elements from section 110(a)(2) from the need to revise their
SIPs under the Infrastructure requirements.
    Response: In this action, EPA has explained that it is not
evaluating and will address in a separate action requirements for Texas
under the 2015 ozone NAAQS related to ``prong 4,'' CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)), which generally requires a SIP to contain
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions within the state from
``interfering with measures required to be in the applicable
implementation plan for any other State under part C of this subchapter
. . . to protect visibility.'' See Infrastructure SIP Guidance 32-35
(providing guidance on how states may satisfy their prong 4
obligations).\1\ EPA considers prong 4 to be ``pollutant-specific,''
such that an infrastructure SIP submission need only address the
potential for interference with protection of visibility based on the
pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS
applies. See id. at 33. Oxides of nitrogen are ozone precursors subject
to the revised 2015 ozone NAAQS and they are also visibility-impairing
pollutants. Therefore, EPA acknowledges that we will need to assess
prong 4 as related to oxides of nitrogen in the Texas August 17, 2018
Transport SIP submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. However, as EPA makes
clear, we are not addressing prong 4 in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013. Such Guidance
is posted in the docket for this rulemaking and also at https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/infrastructure-state-implementation-plan-sip-requirements-and-guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We disagree with Commenter that EPA cannot take separate action on
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prong 4. EPA interprets its authority
under CAA section 110(k) as affording the Agency the discretion to
approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, individual elements of
the Texas infrastructure and Transport submissions for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. EPA views discrete infrastructure SIP requirements, such as the
requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), as severable from other
infrastructure SIP elements and interprets section 110(k) as allowing
it to act on individual severable elements or requirements in a SIP
submission. In short, EPA has the discretion under CAA section 110(k)
to act upon the various individual elements of a state's infrastructure
SIP submission, separately or together, as appropriate. As stated in
the proposal and earlier in this final action, EPA will address the
remaining sub-elements (prongs 1, 2, and 4) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) in a separate rulemaking action or actions.
    Section 110(a)(2) (J)'s visibility requirements need not be
addressed in this i-SIP because a state's requirements relating to
visibility protection are not affected when EPA establishes or revises
a NAAQS. The visibility sub-element of element (J), CAA section
110(a)(2)(J) is different than for prong 4; the revised NAAQS here does
not give rise to additional visibility obligations that would be
appropriate to address in an infrastructure SIP. Under 40 CFR part 51
subpart P, implementing the visibility requirements of CAA title I,
part C, states are subject to requirements for reasonably attributable
visibility impairment, new source review for possible impacts on air
quality related values in Class I areas, and regional haze planning.
These include timeframes for SIP submittals related to

visibility requirements. See, e.g., 40 CFR 51.308(b) (establishing a
deadline for initial SIPs to meet regional haze requirements of
December 17, 2007). Our proposed action contains the relevant language
regarding the visibility sub-element of element (J), and our rationale
is not changing from the proposed action to this final action. As EPA
recognized in the 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance, generally speaking,
when the EPA establishes or revises a NAAQS, the visibility
requirements under part C of title I of the CAA do not change. See
Guidance at 54-55. There are no new visibility protection requirements
under part C as a result of the revised NAAQS here. Therefore, there
are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations pursuant to
element (J) applicable in or to Texas, and this sub-element is
therefore not being addressed in this action. For this reason, unlike
prong 4, EPA does not intend to take action at a later time addressing
this sub-element of element (J) for Texas in the context of
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    The lack of newly applicable obligations is not an exemption from
meeting visibility requirements of the CAA. In fact, EPA, Texas, and
other stakeholders have been engaged in a series of ongoing actions,
rulemakings, and litigation related to the State's visibility
obligations for the first regional haze planning period under subpart
P. See generally EPA's Fourteenth Status Report on Remand, Texas v.
EPA, No. 16-60118 (5th Cir. May 30, 2019) (briefly summarizing recent
history of actions related to regional haze in Texas).\2\ Furthermore,
Texas and other states are in the process of developing SIPs for the
second planning period, which are due to EPA July 31, 2021. See Final
Rule, Protection of Visibility: Amendments to Requirements for State
Plans (82 FR 3078, January 10, 2017). It is wholly appropriate for EPA
to apply the 2013 Guidance here to conclude that in the absence of any
new visibility obligations occasioned by the 2015 ozone NAAQS, Texas'
infrastructure SIP need not address pre-existing visibility obligations
already being addressed in those separate, ongoing actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Status Report is posted in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenter also generally questions EPA's guidance that some
elements in CAA section 110(a)(2) are to be included in infrastructure
SIPs while the visibility sub-element of element (J), are not. EPA's
views on the appropriate treatment of the various requirements of
section 110(a)(2) are generally set out in the 2013 Guidance cited
above. EPA has explained above the basis for its treatment of the prong
4 and the visibility sub-element of element (J) in this action, which
is consistent with the Guidance as well as the facts and circumstances
related to this revised NAAQS for Texas.
    Comment: Commenter states that EPA must conduct a more detailed
financial accounting of the State's finances and staffing needs.
Commenter states that EPA cannot take the State's word and the onus
should not be on the public to disprove the State's statements on
financial security or staffing requirements. Commenter states that EPA
is responsible for determining whether the State has the necessary
staffing and funding to implement the SIP under section 110(a)(2)(E)
and (L).
    Response: We disagree with Commenter that EPA must conduct a more
detailed accounting of the State's finances and staffing needs. Section
110(a)(2) does not require a specific quantitative metric or
methodology for determining adequate resources. CAA section
110(a)(2)(E) requires that the state provide necessary assurances that
it will have adequate funding under state law to carry out the SIP. As
described in our TSD, to address adequate funding, the Texas statute
charges the TCEQ with preparing and developing the SIP and provides the
agency with ``[. . .] powers necessary or convenient to carry out its
responsibilities'' (see Texas Health and Safety Code (THSC) Title 5,
Subtitle C, Chapter 382). To address funding, the Texas statute
provides that ``[t]he commission shall request the appropriation of
sufficient money to safeguard the air resources of the state'' (see
THSC 382.0622). As cited in our TSD, these State statute-assured funds
are supplemented by Federal funds, including CAA section 103 and
section 105 grants. Consequently, there are additional monetary sources
which contribute to Texas' ability to provide adequate personnel and
funding to implement the SIP for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
    Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require each major stationary
source to pay permitting fees to cover the cost of reviewing,
approving, implementing and enforcing a permit. As described in our
TSD, Texas statute provides TCEQ the authority to collect fees for
applications, permits, and inspections (see THSC section 382.062) and
thus receives fees for such, as well as for penalties and interest on
fees owed. Texas requires that applicable sources meet the requirements
in 30 TAC 116, Subchapter B, which includes permit fees and establishes
the fee schedule for permits by rule (see 30 TAC 106, Subchapter B,
Section 106.50, approved into the Texas SIP at 74 FR 11851, March 20,
2009). State rules that address determination and payment of fees,
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit fees, renewal
application fees, and fees for standard and flexible permits are
approved in the Texas SIP (see 74 FR 11851 and 80 FR 42729, July 20,
2015). State rules that address fees for electric generating facilities
(see 76 FR 1525, January 11, 2011), small business stationary source
permits, pipeline facility permits, and existing facility permits are
also approved in the Texas SIP (see 79 FR 577, January 6, 2014). In
addition, Texas statute provides TCEQ authority to collect fees for
vehicle inspection and maintenance programs in several nonattainment
areas and in the Austin area (see THSC sections 382.202 and 382.302)
and these rules are approved in the Texas SIP (see 70 FR 45542, August
8, 2005 and 81 FR 69684, October 7, 2016).
    Finally, Commenter provides no evidence to support their concerns
regarding the State's submittal addressing CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)
and (L). As described in our proposal, TSD, and previously in this
response, the EPA's evaluation and approval of adequate resources for
Texas are based upon various sources of funding, state statutes and
rules pursuant to section 110(a)(2). We do not understand Commenter's
concern regarding the State's ``statements on financial security or
staffing requirements'' since such documentation was neither required
nor submitted.

III. Final Action

    We are approving the August 17, 2018 Texas i-SIP submittal for the
2015 ozone NAAQS in its entirety. We are also approving the portion of
the August 17, 2018 Texas Transport submittal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
that addresses CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), pertaining to the
prevention of significant deterioration in other states for ozone, and
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Our final action on the specified CAA
section 110(a)(2) elements is detailed in Table 1, shown below.

     Table 1--Final Action on Texas Infrastructure and Transport SIP
                   Submittals for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Element                            Final action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission limits and other control measures........               A
(B): Ambient air quality monitoring and data system....               A
(C)(i): Enforcement of SIP measures....................               A
(C)(ii):PSD program for major sources and major                       A
 modifications.........................................
(C)(iii): Permitting program for minor sources and                    A
 minor modifications...................................
(D)(i)(I): Contribute to nonattainment/interfere with                SA
 maintenance of NAAQS (sub-elements 1 and 2)...........
(D)(i)(II): PSD (sub-element 3)........................               A
(D)(i)(II): Visibility protection (sub-element 4)......              SA
(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution                       A
 abatement.............................................
(E)(i): Adequate resources.............................               A
(E)(ii): State boards..................................               A
(E)(iii): Necessary assurances with respect to local                  A
 agencies..............................................
(F): Stationary source monitoring system...............               A
(G): Emergency power...................................               A
(H): Future SIP revisions..............................               A
(I): Nonattainment area plan or plan revisions under                  +
 part D................................................
(J)(i): Consultation with government officials.........               A
(J)(ii): Public notification...........................               A
(J)(iii): PSD..........................................               A
(J)(iv): Visibility protection.........................               +
(K): Air quality modeling and data.....................               A
(L): Permitting fees...................................               A
(M): Consultation and participation by affected local                 A
 entities..............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Table: A: Approved; +: Not germane to infrastructure SIPs; SA:
  EPA to address this infrastructure requirement in a separate
  rulemaking action.

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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    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 November 22, 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, Ozone.

    Dated: September 16, 2019.
David Gray,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e), titled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP,'' is amended by adding the entry ``Infrastructure and
Interstate Transport for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS'' at the end of the table
to reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable           State
     Name of SIP provision          geographic or      submittal/     EPA approval date          Comments
                                 nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure and Interstate    Statewide.........       8/17/2018  9/23/2019, [Insert  Approval for CAA
 Transport for the 2015 Ozone                                         Federal Register    elements 110(a)(2)(A),
 NAAQS.                                                               citation].          (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)
                                                                                (portion pertaining to
                                                                                PSD), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-20314 Filed 9-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 51692-51693]
[DOCID:fr10se07-89]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56346; File No. SR-ISE-2007-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Fee Changes

August 31, 2007.
    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 August 27, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''
or ``Exchange'') 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 ISE. ISE filed the
proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) \4\ thereunder, as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charges applicable to a member, which renders the proposed rule
change 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to establish fees
for transaction in options on one Premium Product.\5\ The text of the
proposed rule change is available at ISE, http://www.iseoptions.com,

and the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Premium Products'' are defined in the Schedule of Fees as
the products enumerated therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to
establish fees for transactions in options on the following Premium
Product: iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Fund (``EEM'').\6\ The Exchange
represents that EEM is eligible for options trading because it
constitutes ``Fund Shares,'' as defined by ISE Rule 502(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ iShares[reg] is a registered trademark of Barclays Global
Investors, N.A. (``BGI''), a majority owned subsidiary of Barclays
Bank PLC. ``MSCI Emerging Markets Index'' is a service mark of
Morgan Stanley Capital International (``MSCI'') and has been
licensed for use for certain purposes by BGI. All other trademarks
and service marks are the property of their respective owners. EEM
is not sponsored, endorsed, issued, sold or promoted by MSCI. BGI
and MSCI have not licensed or authorized ISE to: (i) Engage in the
creation, listing, provision of a market for trading, marketing, and
promotion of options on EEM; or (ii) to use and refer to any of
their trademarks or service marks in connection with the listing,
provision of a market for trading, marketing, and promotion of
options on EEM or with making disclosures concerning options on EEM
under any applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations.
BGI and MSCI do not sponsor, endorse, or promote such activity by
ISE, and are not affiliated in any manner with ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the applicable fees covered by this filing are identical to
fees charged by the Exchange for all other Premium Products.
Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt an execution fee and a
comparison fee for all transactions in options on EEM.\7\ The amount of
the execution fee and comparison fee for products covered by this
filing shall be $0.15 and $0.03 per contract, respectively, for all
Public Customer Orders \8\ and Firm Proprietary orders. The amount of
the execution fee and comparison fee for all ISE Market Maker
transactions shall be equal to the execution fee and comparison fee
currently charged by the Exchange for ISE Market Maker transactions in
equity options.\9\ Finally, the amount of the execution fee and
comparison fee for all non-ISE Market Maker transactions shall be $0.37
and $0.03 per contract, respectively. Further, since options on EEM are
multiply-listed, the Payment for Order Flow fee shall apply to this
product. The Exchange believes the proposed rule change will further
the Exchange's goal of introducing new products to the marketplace that
are competitively priced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ These fees will be charged only to Exchange members. Under a
pilot program that is set to expire on July 31, 2008, these fees
will also be charged to Linkage Orders (as defined in ISE Rule
1900). See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56128 (July 24,
2007), 72 FR 42161 (August 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-55).
    \8\ ``Public Customer Order'' is defined in Exchange Rule
100(a)(39) as an order for the account of a Public Customer.
``Public Customer'' is defined in Exchange Rule 100(a)(38) as a
person that is not a broker or dealer in securities.
    \9\ The execution fee is currently between $0.21 and $0.12 per
contract side, depending on the Exchange Average Daily Volume, and
the comparison fee is currently $0.03 per contract side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, in that
it is designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that 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 interested parties.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \12\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \13\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes
a due, fee, or other charge applicable only to a member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-ISE-2007-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-78. 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2007-78 and should be
submitted on or before October 1, 2007.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-17721 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41290-41291]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1121; Airspace Docket No. 12-AGL-8]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Elbow Lake, MN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Elbow Lake, MN.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Elbow Lake
Municipal--Pride of the Prairie Airport. The FAA is taking this action
to enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October, 17, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 26, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
Elbow Lake Municipal--Pride of the Prairie Airport, Elbow Lake, MN (78
FR 18267) Docket No. FAA-2012-1121. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Also, in the NPRM a
typographical error was found in the proposal citing the wrong radius
mileage; the correct controlled airspace area is from within a 6.5-mile
radius of the airport, not a 6-mile radius. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated
August 8, 2012, and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Elbow Lake Municipal--
Pride of the Prairie Airport, Elbow Lake, MN, to ensure that required
controlled airspace exists to contain new standard instrument approach
procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes

controlled airspace at Elbow Lake Municipal--Pride of the Prairie
Airport, Elbow Lake, MN.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

AGL MN E5 Elbow Lake, MN [New]

Elbow Lake Municipal-Pride of the Prairie Airport, MN
    (Lat. 45[deg]59'05'' N., long. 95[deg]59'31'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Elbow Lake Municipal-Pride of the
Prairie Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 24, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-16444 Filed 7-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P