[Federal Register: April 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 84)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23356-23361]
[DOCID:fr30ap08-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1177; FRL-8559-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Revisions to Particulate Matter Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On March 14, 2008, EPA proposed to approve Indiana's February
21, 2008, request to revise its particulate matter State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for sources in Clark, Dearborn, Dubois, Howard, Lake,
Marion, St. Joseph, Vanderburgh, Vigo, and Wayne Counties. This SIP
revision updated facility names, revised formatting, removed sources no
longer in operation, and revised some emission limits. The State
submitted air quality modeling analyses that demonstrated that air
quality will continue to be protected in the five counties where some
emission limits increased. EPA received one letter containing several
comments on the proposal. After review of these comments and for the
reasons discussed below, EPA is approving this SIP revision request.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1177. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) 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 Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone
Mary Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before
visiting the Region 5 office.

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

I. Background
II. Response to Public Comments
III. What Action Is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On November 27, 2007, Indiana submitted to EPA draft revised rules
for parallel processing as revisions to the Indiana SIP for particulate
matter (PM). Indiana supplemented its submittal with a public hearing
transcript and additional technical support documents on December 3,
2007, and submitted final, fully adopted revised rules on February 21,
2008.
    Indiana's submittal consisted of revisions to 326 Indiana
Administrative Code (IAC) 6.5, Particulate Matter Emission Limitations
Except Lake County; and 326 IAC 6.8, Particulate Matter Emission
Limitations For Lake County. Portions of 326 IAC 6.5 and 6.8 were
unchanged by the submittal, and therefore they remain a part of the
Indiana PM SIP as approved on March 22, 2006 (71 FR 14383).
    The revised rules apply to facilities in Clark, Dearborn, Dubois,
Howard, Lake, Marion, St. Joseph, Vanderburgh, Vigo, and Wayne
Counties. They include a variety of changes to Indiana's Federally
approved PM SIP rules, such as: Updates to affected facilities' names
or emission source identifiers; rule formatting revisions which have no
effect on numerical emission limits; the removal of emission limits for
individual emission units which no longer exist or operate; and the
removal of rules for entire facilities which no longer exist or which
no longer operate the PM sources that were listed in the previous PM
SIP. Indiana has increased some PM emission limits for sources in
Clark, Dubois, Marion, St. Joseph, and Lake Counties. Indiana has also
tightened PM emission limits at several sources.
    In addition, Indiana relocated the opacity limits and natural gas
combustion-only restrictions for its Lake County sources to the
facility-specific sections of the rule. The PM limits and any opacity
limits and natural gas-only restrictions for each facility are now
grouped in a single section.
    EPA proposed to approve Indiana's February 21, 2008, SIP revision
request on March 14, 2008, (73 FR 13813). The public comment period for
the March 14, 2008, proposed rule ended on April 14, 2008. EPA received
one comment letter on the March 14, 2008, proposed rule.

II. Response to Public Comments

    EPA received several public comments contained in a letter dated
April 14, 2008, from the City of Chicago, the People of the State of
Illinois, ex rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of the State of
Illinois, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Law and
Policy Center (Commenters), on behalf of their constituents and
members. These comments focused solely on the proposed PM10 emission
limits for BP Products North America, Inc.'s Whiting Refinery in Lake
County, Indiana (BP).
    Comment: The revised limits for BP should include limits on sulfur
content. Refinery fuel gas contains more sulfur than natural gas, and
the sulfur in the fuel will be converted to fine particulate matter in
the atmosphere. BP should be required to reduce the sulfur content of
its refinery fuel gas in order to meet the proposed PM10 limit.
    Response: Indiana's February 21, 2008, SIP revision request
requires the gas-combusting sources at BP to meet a PM10 emission limit
of 0.0075 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU), whether
natural gas or refinery fuel gas is used. BP's Title V permit requires
testing while refinery gas, which has higher PM10 emissions than
natural gas, is being combusted. The required compliance test methods,
Methods 201A and 202, are designed to capture both the filterable and
condensible PM fractions, including sulfur compounds. An air dispersion
modeling analysis demonstrated that Indiana's February 21, 2008, SIP
revision request will maintain the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) in Lake County. Therefore, requiring additional
reductions in the sulfur content of BP's refinery fuel gas is not
necessary for Federal approval of this SIP revision request.
    In further support of its contentions concerning fuel sulfur
content, the commenters cite (and, in some cases, incorporate by
reference) the following: The Bay Area Quality Management District's
BACT guideline for refinery process heaters; EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse; South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations;
and several permits that contain sulfur content limits more stringent
than those for the BP refinery. These documents and provisions are not
germane to the air quality issue addressed by EPA's proposal, i.e.,
whether the proposed emission limits are adequate to maintain the
NAAQS. See, e.g., Train v. NRDC, 421 U.S. 60 (1975).
    Comment: The AP-42 emission factors for natural gas should be
updated and the BP limits based on these factors recalculated
accordingly. The emission factors were last updated in July 1998. The
stack tests conducted since 1998 would show that the current AP-42
emission factors are overestimations of particulate matter. The AP-42
emission factors for natural gas should be updated and the SIP revision
should not be approved until the BP limits reflect the newer AP-42
emission factors.
    Response: While IDEM used AP-42 emission factors to set PM10
limits, the test for approval is whether these limits are sufficient to
meet the PM10 NAAQS. Such a demonstration has been made by IDEM. EPA
manages and maintains an AP-42 emissions factor database. User-supplied
updates to the AP-42 emissions factors for natural gas are welcome, but
EPA is unaware of any new submissions, including any that would support
the commenters' suggestion. Indiana used the most recent available
emission factor as a basis for the PM emission limits for BP's gas
combustion units in the proposed SIP revision and demonstrated through
air dispersion modeling that the proposed SIP revision would meet the
PM10 NAAQS. If the AP-42 emission factors overestimate emissions, as
the commenters have asserted, then the air dispersion modeling analysis
would overestimate PM emissions, yielding a conservative analysis,
i.e., one that overpredicts actual emissions and their impacts.
    Comment: The limits should require the use of EPA test methods 201
and 202, and BP must be required to install PM continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMs) and conduct annual

stack testing to ensure continuous compliance. The commenters approve
of the test methods applicable to BP, namely, Methods 201A for
filterable PM and 202 for condensible PM. In addition, the commenters
request that EPA approval in writing be required for the ``excessive
temperatures'' exception justifying use of Method 5; and that
additional language be added stating that alternative methods will only
be allowed if EPA determines in writing that the listed methods are
otherwise shown to be technologically infeasible and the proposed
alternatives are substantially comparable to the listed methods. The
public should have an opportunity to submit comments on any proposed
alternative method before EPA issues a written approval. In addition,
the limits should specify an averaging time, unless the intent is that
the limit be met on an instantaneous basis.
    EPA Response: The PM test methods applicable to BP require the use
of Method 201A for determining filterable particulate matter and Method
202 for determining condensibles. EPA's approval in writing is not
necessary to allow use of Method 5 in lieu of Method 201A for the
excessive temperature exception, because Method 5 measures all
filterable PM, not just PM10, and is therefore a more stringent
requirement. In fact, Method 5 in combination with Method 202 would
likely result in higher results than Method 201A with Method 202. EPA
agrees that an alternative test method would only be allowed if the
existing method is infeasible for a particular application, in which
case the most appropriate method would be used. Such technical testing
issues are not typically subject to public notice. An averaging time is
not specified because these limits must be met on an instantaneous
basis. Both EPA and IDEM are authorized to require stack testing when
appropriate.
    CEMs are not appropriate because they only measure filterable PM
emissions which, as the commenters have stated, only represent a
fraction of the PM emissions.
    Comment: Indiana has failed to adequately address controlling PM10
emissions from flares in general. Flares can be significant sources of
particulate emissions. EPA should consider whether the proposed SIP
revision reflects all applicable requirements that could control
particulate emissions from flares at the BP facility.
    Response: Flares are an insignificant source of PM10 emissions
(contributing less than one percent of BP's PM10 emissions) and
therefore, are not included in Indiana's PM10 SIP. Flares operate at
high temperatures and their emissions are released at elevated heights.
These factors result in efficient combustion and increased dispersion,
both of which minimize the ambient impact of any resulting PM
emissions. Because of these characteristics, EPA does not anticipate
that the emissions from the BP flares would be significant contributors
to ambient PM concentrations.
    In addition, it is not feasible to establish PM limits for flares
because they are not generally amenable to testing, as well as for
safety reasons. It should also be noted that the Indiana SIP contains
opacity regulations which apply to flares and which can be easily
enforced. See 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B).
    Indiana's February 21, 2008 submittal did not contain PM10 control
requirements for flares at the BP refinery and they are therefore not
addressed in this final approval. EPA finds this omission acceptable
for the reasons stated above.

III. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving Indiana's February 21, 2008, PM SIP revision
request, consisting of revisions to 326 IAC 6.5 and 326 IAC 6.8.
    On March 27, 2008, Indiana provided an updated copy of 326 IAC 6.5
and 326 IAC 6.8 to EPA. This copy includes three State corrections. In
the proposed rule, at 73 FR 13815, EPA stated that Indiana was planning
to correct an error in the units of the PM emission limit for Kimball
Office-Borden (326 IAC 6.5-2-8). Indiana filed a correction notice to
correct the error on February 29, 2008. It was posted in the Indiana
Register on March 12, 2008. On February 5, 2008, Indiana filed a
correction notice to correct the PM emission limit units for Accucast
Technology, LLC (326 IAC 6.5-7-14). A copy of this correction notice
was included in Indiana's February 21, 2008, submittal and the
correction was noted in EPA's March 14, 2008, proposed rule at 73 FR
13817. Indiana's March 27, 2008, submittal also incorporates a third
correction notice, which amended minor typographical errors. This
correction notice was filed on January 31, 2008, and posted in the
Indiana Register on February 20, 2008. A copy of this correction notice
was included in Indiana's February 21, 2008, submittal.
    Additionally, as a clarification to EPA's proposal, we noted that
Indiana's rules were for PM measured as particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to ten microns in diameter (PM10) for all
counties. However, only Lake County is covered by PM10 limits and the
remaining counties are covered by PM limits. Although the SIP
regulations for sources outside of Lake County are expressed as PM, the
State's and EPA's analyses focused on PM10, a subset of PM.
    EPA is approving revisions to 325 IAC 6.5, Particulate Matter
Emission Limitations Except Lake County, at 326 IAC 6.5-2, Clark
County; 326 IAC 6.5-3, Dearborn County; 326 IAC 6.5-4, Dubois County;
326 IAC 6.5-5, Howard County; 326 IAC 6.5-6, Marion County; 326 IAC
6.5-7, St. Joseph County; 326 IAC 6.5-8, Vanderburgh County; 326 IAC
6.5-9, Vigo County; and 326 IAC 6.5-10, Wayne County.
    EPA is also approving revisions to 326 IAC 6.8, Particulate Matter
Emission Limitations For Lake County, at 326 IAC 6.8-1-1, General
Provisions, Applicability; 326 IAC 6.8-1-5, Control strategies; 326 IAC
6.8-1-7, Scope; 326 IAC 6.8-2, Lake County: PM10 Emission Requirements;
326 IAC 6.8-4-1, Lake County: Opacity Limits; Test Methods; 326 IAC
6.8-8-1, Lake County: Continuous Compliance Plan, Applicability; 326
IAC 6.8-9-3, Lake County: PM10 Coke Battery Emission Requirements,
Emission limitations; and 326 IAC 6.8-10-1, Lake County: Fugitive
Particulate Matter, Applicability.
    The following portions of 326 IAC 6.5 were repealed and are no
longer a part of the Indiana PM SIP: 326 IAC 6.5-2, Clark County,
sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12; 326 IAC 6.5-3, Dearborn County,
sections 6 and 9; 326 IAC 6.5-4, Dubois County, sections 7, 8, 11, 12,
13, 14, 20, 22, and 23; 326 IAC 6.5-5, Howard County, sections 3, 4, 6,
7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, and 15; 326 IAC 6.5-6, Marion County, sections 4,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 30, 32,
and 36; 326 IAC 6.5-7, St. Joseph County, sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,
12, 15, 17, 19, and 20; 326 IAC 6.5-8, Vanderburgh County, sections 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 15; 326 IAC 6.5-9, Vigo County, sections
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 20; and 326 IAC 6.5-10,
Wayne County, sections 4, 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 19. EPA is approving
their removal from the Indiana PM SIP, as discussed in the March 14,
2008, proposed rule.
    The following portions of 326 IAC 6.8 were repealed and are no
longer a part of the Indiana PM10 SIP: 326 IAC 6.8-2, Lake County: PM10
Emission Requirements, sections 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 23; 326 IAC
6.8-3, Lake County: Opacity Limits; Exceptions to 326 IAC 5-1-2; 326
IAC 6.8-5, Lake County: Opacity Continuous Emissions Monitors; 326 IAC
6.8-6, Lake County: Combustion Sources; Natural Gas; and 326 IAC 6.8-7,
Lake County: Site-Specific Control Requirements. EPA is

approving their removal from the Indiana PM10 SIP, as discussed in the
March 14, 2008, proposed rule.
    In addition, please note that for purposes of clarity, EPA is also
including provisions currently in Indiana's PM SIP that it has
previously approved.

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 June 30, 2008. 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, Particulate matter.

    Dated: April 22, 2008.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 P--Indiana

0
2. Section 52.770 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(187) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (187) On February 21, 2008, Indiana submitted revisions to its
particulate matter SIP. On March 27, 2008, Indiana submitted a
corrected copy of its rules. The submittal revises 326 IAC 6.5:
Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County and 326 IAC 6.8:
Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County. This SIP revision
updates facility names, revises formatting, removes sources no longer
in operation, and revises some emission limits.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. The following sections of Title 326
of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) are incorporated by reference:
    (A) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 1, General Provisions, sections 326 IAC 6.5-1-1 through 326 IAC
6.5-1-7, filed August 10, 2005, effective on September 9, 2005 and
previously incorporated by reference (see paragraph (c)(173)(i)(A) of
this section).
    (B) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 2, Clark County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-2-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-2-
12, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008 (326 IAC
6.5-2-8 Kimball Office-Borden, filed January 23, 2008, effective on
February 22, 2008, errata filed on February 29, 2008).
    (C) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 3, Dearborn County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-3-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-
3-9, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (D) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 4, Dubois County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-4-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-4-
24, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (E) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 5, Howard County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-5-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-5-
16, filed

January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (F) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 6, Marion County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-6-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-6-
36, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008 (326 IAC
6.5-6-18, Cargill, Inc., filed January 23, 2008, effective on February
22, 2008, errata filed on January 31, 2008).
    (G) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 7, St. Joseph County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-7-1 through 326 IAC
6.5-7-20, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008 (326
IAC 6.5-7-14 Accucast Technology, LLC, filed January 23, 2008,
effective on February 22, 2008, errata filed on February 5, 2008).
    (H) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 8, Vanderburgh County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-8-1 through 326 IAC
6.5-8-15, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (I) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 9, Vigo County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-9-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-9-20,
filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (J) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.5: Particulate Matter Limitations Except Lake County,
Rule 10, Wayne County, sections 326 IAC 6.5-10-1 through 326 IAC 6.5-
10-19, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (K) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations For Lake County,
Rule 1, General Provisions, sections 326 IAC 6.8-1-1, Applicability,
6.8-1-5, Control strategies, and 6.8-1-7, Scope, filed January 23,
2008, effective on February 22, 2008; and Indiana Administrative Code
Title 326: Air Pollution Control Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter
Limitations For Lake County, Rule 1, General Provisions, sections 326
IAC 6.8-1-1.5, Definitions, 6.8-1-2, Particulate emission limitations;
fuel combustion steam generators, asphalt concrete plant, grain
elevators, foundries, mineral aggregate operations; modification by
commission, 6.8-1-3, Compliance Determination, 6.8-1-4, Compliance
schedules, and 6.8-6-6, State implementation plan revisions, filed
August 10, 2005, effective on September 9, 2005 and previously
incorporated by reference (see paragraph (c)(173)(i)(A) of this
section).
    (L) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 2, Lake County: PM10 Emission Requirements, sections 326 IAC 6.8-
2-1 through 326 IAC 6.8-2-38, filed January 23, 2008, effective on
February 22, 2008 (326 IAC 6.8-2-6 BP Products North America, Inc.-
Whiting Refinery, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22,
2008, errata filed on February 29, 2008).
    (M) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 3, Lake County: Opacity Limits; Exceptions to 326 IAC 5-1-2,
sections 326 IAC 6.8-3-1 through 326 IAC 6.8-3-4, filed January 23,
2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (N) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 4, Lake County: Opacity Limits; Test Methods, filed January 23,
2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (O) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 5, Lake County: Opacity Continuous Emissions Monitors,
Installation and operation of continuous emissions monitors (Repealed),
filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22, 2008.
    (P) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 6, Lake County: Combustion Sources; Natural Gas, sections 326 IAC
6.8-6-1 through 326 IAC 6.8-6-20), filed January 23, 2008, effective on
February 22, 2008.
    (Q) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 7, Lake County: Site-Specific Control Requirements, sections 326
IAC 6.8-7-1 through 326 IAC 6.8-7-8, filed January 23, 2008, effective
on February 22, 2008.
    (R) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 8, Lake County: Continuous Compliance Plan, section 326 IAC 6.8-8-
1 Applicability, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22,
2008; and Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 8, Lake County: Continuous Compliance Plan, sections 326 IAC 6.8-
8-2 Documentation; operation and maintenance procedures, 326 IAC 6.8-8-
3 Plan requirements, 326 IAC 6.8-8-4 Plan; schedule for complying with
326 IAC 6.8-7, 326 IAC 6.8-8-5 Plan; source categories, 326 IAC 6.8-8-6
Plan; particulate matter control equipment; operation and maintenance,
326 IAC 6.8-8-7 Plan; particulate matter control equipment; recording;
operation; inspection, 326 IAC 6.8-8-8 Plan; department review, filed
August 10, 2005, effective on September 9, 2005 and previously
incorporated by reference (see paragraph (c)(173)(i)(A) of this
section).
    (S) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 9, Lake County: PM10 Coke Battery Emission Requirements, section
326 IAC 6.8-9-3 Emission limitations, filed January 23, 2008, effective
on February 22, 2008; and Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air
Pollution Control Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations
for Lake County, Rule 9, Lake County: PM10 Coke Battery Emission
Requirements, sections 326 IAC 6.8-9-1 Applicability, and 326 IAC 6.8-
9-2 Definitions, filed August 10, 2005, effective on September 9, 2005
and previously incorporated by reference (see paragraph (c)(173)(i)(A)
of this section).
    (T) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 10, Lake County: Fugitive Particulate Matter, section 326 IAC 6.8-
10-1 Applicability, filed January 23, 2008, effective on February 22,
2008; and Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 10, Lake County: Fugitive Particulate Matter, sections 326 IAC
6.8-10-2 Definitions, 326 IAC 6.8-10-3 Particulate matter emission
limitations, and 326 IAC 6.8-10-4 Compliance requirements; control
plans, filed August 10, 2005, effective on September 9, 2005 and
previously incorporated by reference (see paragraph (c)(173)(i)(A) of
this section).
    (U) Indiana Administrative Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control
Board, Article 6.8: Particulate Matter Limitations for Lake County,
Rule 11, Lake County: Particulate Matter Contingency Measures, sections
326 IAC 6.8-11-1 through 326 IAC 6.8-11-6, filed August 10, 2005,
effective on

September 9, 2005 and previously incorporated by reference (see
paragraph (c)(173)(i)(A) of this section).
    (ii) Additional material.
    (A) Certificate of Authenticity, Indiana Administrative Code, (As
Updated Through March 26, 2008), signed by John M. Ross, Executive
Director, Legislative Services Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-9330 Filed 4-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 84764-84767]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26664]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2230; Project Identifier MCAI-2023-00861-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type
Certificate Previously Held by 328 Support Services GmbH; AvCraft
Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH)
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Deutsche Aircraft GmbH Model 328-100 and -300 airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by operator reports of worn and ruptured
bonding straps inside the feeder wing tanks and in both outer and inner
wing tanks. This proposed AD would require a one-time detailed
inspection of each affected part, and applicable corrective actions, as
specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which
is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 22,
2024.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-2230; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For EASA material that is proposed for IBR in this AD,
contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone
+49 221 8999 000; email [email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You
may find this material on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu. It is
also available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2230.
     You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-2230; Project Identifier
MCAI-2023-00861-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Todd
Thompson, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2023-0137, dated July 12, 2023 (EASA
AD 2023-0137) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type Certificate previously
held by 328 Support Services GmbH; AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild
Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328-100 and 328-300
airplanes. The MCAI states that operators reported findings of damaged
affected parts. The extent of the detected damage of the affected parts
did not ensure that appropriately low electrical impedance is obtained
and maintained through the affected bonding path. The unsafe condition,
which if not detected and corrected, could lead to the loss of bonding
function and, in combination with a lightning strike, create a source
of ignition in a fuel tank, possibly resulting in a fire or explosion.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-2230.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2023-0137 specifies procedures for a one-time detailed
inspection of each affected part for worn and ruptured bonding straps,
and applicable corrective actions (replacing the affected parts). This
material is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2023-0137 described previously, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation
authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance
with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been
coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the
FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2023-0137 by reference in the FAA
final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with
EASA AD 2023-0137 in its entirety through that incorporation, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading
of a particular section in EASA AD 2023-0137 does not mean that
operators need to comply only with that section. For example, where the
AD requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''

compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in EASA AD 2023-
0137. Service information required by EASA AD 2023-0137 for compliance
will be available at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-2230
after the FAA final rule is published.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action.
If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further
rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 35 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
44 work-hours x $85 per hour = $3,740........................              $0           $3,740         $130,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required based on the results of any
required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these on-condition actions:
    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost
estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive:

Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type Certificate Previously Held by 328
Support Services GmbH; AvCraft Aerospace GmbH; Fairchild Dornier
GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2023-2230; Project
Identifier MCAI-2023-00861-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 22, 2024.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Deutsche Aircraft GmbH (Type Certificate
previously held by 328 Support Services GmbH; AvCraft Aerospace
GmbH; Fairchild Dornier GmbH; Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH) Model 328-100
and 328-300 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by operator reports of worn and ruptured
bonding straps inside the feeder wing tanks and in both outer and
inner wing tanks. The FAA is issuing this AD to address damaged
bonding straps. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result
in the loss of bonding function and, in combination with a lightning
strike, create a source of ignition in a fuel tank, possibly
resulting in a fire or explosion and consequent loss of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, EASA AD 2023-0137, dated July 12, 2023 (EASA AD
2023-0137).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2023-0137

    (1) Where EASA AD 2023-0137 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) This AD does not adopt the ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD
2023-0137.
    (3) Where paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2023-0137 specifies if ``any
damage is detected as defined in the ASB,'' this AD requires
replacing those words with ``any worn or ruptured bonding strap is
detected.''

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
International Validation Branch, mail it to the address identified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify

your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Deutsche Aircraft GmbH's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0137,
dated July 12, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2023-0137, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3,
50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
[email protected]; website easa.europa.eu. You may find this EASA
AD on the EASA website at ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this material at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations or email [email protected].

    Issued on November 29, 2023.
Victor Wicklund,
Deputy Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-26664 Filed 12-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 19, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41826-41829]
[FR Doc No: E9-19856]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0024; FRL-8943-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District portion of the California State Implementation Plan. These
revisions concern a local fee rule that applies to major sources of
volatile organic compound and nitrogen oxide emissions within the San
Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area. We are proposing action on a
local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990. We are taking comments on this proposal and
plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 18, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0024, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rule did the State Submit?
    B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?
    C. Why Was This Rule Submitted?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
    B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
    D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) adopted Rule 3170, Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment
Fee, on May 16, 2002. This rule was submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) on August 6, 2002, for incorporation into the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). On August 30, 2002, this
rule submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
Part 51, Appendix V.

B. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 requires certain major stationary sources of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)
in the San Joaquin Valley ozone nonattainment area to pay a fee to the
SJVUAPCD if the area fails to attain the 1-hour national ambient air
quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone by its Federally established
attainment date. The fee must be paid for each calendar year after the
attainment year until the area is redesignated to attainment of the 1-
hour ozone standard.

C. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    Under sections 182(d)(3), (e), and 185 of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), States are required to adopt an
excess emissions fee regulation for ozone nonattainment areas
classified as severe or extreme. The 1-hour ozone NAAQS classification
for the San Joaquin Valley area is extreme (see 69 FR 20550, April 16,
2004). Although EPA has revoked the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23951,
April 30, 2004), Section 185 requirements still apply for 1-hour ozone
non-attainment areas (South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882, DC Cir. 2006). The fee regulation specified by the
Act requires major stationary sources of VOCs in the nonattainment area
to pay a fee to the State if the area fails to attain the standard by
the attainment date set forth in the Act. Section 182(f) of the Act
requires States to apply the same requirements to major stationary
sources of NOX as are applied to major stationary sources of
VOCs. Emissions of VOCs and NOX play a role in producing
ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human health and the
environment. SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 applies to major sources of both
NOX and VOCs.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). Rule 3170 was evaluated for compliance with the requirements in
CAA section 185. The rule was also

evaluated for consistency with the CAA and EPA's general SIP policies,
as well as a March 21, 2008, memorandum from William Harnett, Director
of the Air Quality Policy Division, to the Regional Air Division
Directors, entitled, ``Guidance on Establishing Emissions Baselines
under Section 185 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and Extreme
Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by
their Attainment Date.'' Guidance and policy documents that we use to
help evaluate specific enforceability requirements typically include
the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations'', EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies'', EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule'', (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    Rule 3170 improves the SIP by establishing an excess emissions fee
regulation. Portions of the rule are consistent with the CAA, as well
as relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP
relaxations. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria
are summarized below.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    The following provisions conflict with section 185 of the Act and
prevent full approval of the SIP revision:
    Section 4.2 of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 exempts units that begin
operation after the attainment year. CAA Section 185 does not provide
for an exemption for emission units that begin operation after the
attainment year, so this exemption does not fully comply with the CAA.
Rather, it requires ``each major source'' to pay the fee. See CAA
section 185(a).
    Section 4.3 exempts any ``clean emission unit'' from the
requirements of the rule. Section 3.6 defines a clean emission unit as
a unit that is equipped with an emissions control technology that
either has a minimum 95% control efficiency (or 85% for lean-burn
internal combustion engines), or meets the requirements for achieved-
in-practice Best Achievable Control Technology as accepted by the APCO
during the 5 years immediately prior to the end of the attainment year.
The District's staff report for Rule 3170 states that the exemption is
intended to address ``the difficulty of reducing emissions from units
with recently installed BACT.'' Although EPA understands the District's
intended purpose for including the exemption, the exemption does not
comply with CAA section 185, for the same reason as noted above for new
emission units.
    The EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) has recently
asked EPA to review and address whether it is ``legally permissible
under either section 185 or 172(e) of the Clean Air Act for a State to
exercise discretion'' to develop fee program SIPs employing one or more
of a list of CAAAC-identified program options (see http://www.epa.gov/air/caaac/185wg). One of the program options the CAAAC identified is an
exemption from fees for ``well-controlled'' sources. In today's action,
EPA is proposing to disapprove the ``clean emission unit'' exemption in
SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 because we do not believe such an exemption is
authorized by CAA section 185. However, the State has not requested
that EPA review the SIP pursuant to section 172(e) and has not made a
demonstration that the program it has submitted would ensure controls
that are ``not less stringent'' than those required under section
172(e). Thus, EPA is not at this time addressing whether it is legally
permissible under CAA section 172(e) for a State to adopt an
alternative program at least as stringent as a section 185 fee program,
and for the alternative program to contain a clean unit exemption.
    Section 3.2.1 defines the baseline period as two consecutive years
consisting of the attainment year and the year immediately prior to the
attainment year. CAA Section 185(b)(2) establishes the attainment year
as the baseline period. While this provision also provides the option
for calculating baseline emissions over a period of more than one
calendar year, that option is limited to sources with emissions that
are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary significantly from year to
year. Thus section 3.2.1 is inconsistent with the CAA because it
provides a different baseline than that required by the CAA (two years
instead of one) regardless of whether the emissions are irregular, etc.
    Section 3.2.2 allows averaging over 2-5 years to establish baseline
emissions. CAA Section 185(b)(2) states that EPA may issue guidance
authorizing such an alternative method of calculating baseline
emissions if a source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise
vary significantly from year to year. EPA issued guidance on
alternative methods for calculating baseline emissions in the form of
the memorandum from William Harnett, mentioned above. The averaging
period allowed in Section 3.2.2 of Rule 3170 appears consistent with
the March 21, 2008, guidance. However, the language in Section 3.2.2
allows such averaging ``if those years are determined by the APCO as
more representative of normal source operation.'' This language is
considered less stringent than the CAA criteria. The rule should be
amended to specify use of the expanded averaging period only if a
source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly from year to year.
    Section 3.4 defines the term ``Major Source'' by referring to the
definition in SJVUAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source
Review Rule). The current SIP-approved version of Rule 2201 was adopted
by the SJVUAPCD on December 19, 2002, and approved by EPA on May 17,
2004 (69 FR 27837). This version of Rule 2201 defines ``Major Source''
as a stationary source with VOC or NOx emissions of over 50,000 pounds
per year (25 tons per year). The CAA defines the major source threshold
as 10 tons per year for ozone nonattainment areas classified as
extreme. The SJVUAPCD amended Rule 2201 on December 18, 2008, and
submitted it for inclusion in the SIP on March 17, 2009. This amended
version includes the 10 tons per year threshold, but has not been
approved into the SIP. Therefore, Rule 3170's reliance on Rule 2201 to
define major sources is not approvable at this time. If a version of
Rule 2201 that contains the appropriate major source threshold is
approved into the SIP prior to finalizing this proposed action, then we
will no longer cite Section 3.4 as a deficiency in Rule 3170.

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP.
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval
is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3) because the rule does
not fully meet the statutory section 185 requirement. If this
disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179
of the Act unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct
the rule deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be
imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A

final disapproval would also trigger the Federal implementation plan
(FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rule
has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval
would not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. Moreover, because
the rule would be approved into the SIP, it would also be Federally
enforceable.
    However, the limited approval of Rule 3170 does not override
specific CAA mandates. If the area fails to attain by its 2010
attainment date, fees will accrue beginning in 2011 for emissions above
80% of source baselines for clean units, new units and major sources
which are exempted from fee collection under the State rule. The State
must adopt and submit a rule to collect fees for 2011 and future years
from those units or, consistent with the Administrator's obligation
under section 185(d), EPA will collect those fees. In addition, all
sources are liable for fees calculated in accordance with the baseline
definition in section 185(b)(2) as further interpreted in EPA guidance
issued pursuant to that provision. The State must adopt and submit a
rule that ensures fees are collected for 2011 and all future applicable
years based on the statutory baseline requirement. If the State fails
to do so, EPA will collect any additional fees owed pursuant to a
Federal program under section 185(d).
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that
the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal
SIP limited approval/limited disapproval does not create any new
requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval
action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or
Tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This
Federal action proposes to approve and disapprove pre-existing
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or Tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely proposes to approve or disapprove a State rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on
the

distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from Tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a
State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 6, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-19856 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 212 (Friday, November 5, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61102-61103]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24253]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 60 and 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0382; FRL-7547.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV37

Potential Future Regulation Addressing Pyrolysis and Gasification
Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of public
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On September 8, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) solicited information and requested comments to assist in the
potential development of regulations for pyrolysis and gasification
units that are used to convert solid or semi-solid feedstocks to useful
products such as energy, fuels, and chemical commodities. The deadline
to respond to our request was November 8, 2021. The EPA is extending
the period to respond to our request for information and comment to
December 23, 2021.

DATES: The public comment period for the request for information
published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2021 (86 FR 50296),
originally ending November 8, 2021, is being extended. Written comments
must be received on or before December 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments. You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0382, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2021-0382 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0382.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0382, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier (by scheduled appointment only):
EPA Docket Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operation
are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday (except Federal holidays).
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2021-0382. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit electronically any information that you consider
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. This type of information should be submitted by mail as
discussed below.
    Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by
a written comment. The written comment is considered the official
comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make.
The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your
comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through
https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the
public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an
electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files
should not include special characters or any form of encryption and
should be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information
about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and EPA
staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting COVID-19.
The EPA's Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. The Agency encourages the public
to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ or email, as there
may be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand deliveries and
couriers may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further
information on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets. The EPA continues to carefully and
continuously monitor information from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, local area health departments, and our Federal partners
so that the Agency can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding
COVID-19.
    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA
through https://www.regulations.gov/ or email. Clearly mark the part or
all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on
any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of
the digital storage media as CBI and then identify electronically
within the digital storage media the specific information that is
claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments
that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the
comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly
to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions
above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain
CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does
not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the
public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior
notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0382. Note that
written comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed
and no hand deliveries will be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this action,
contact Nabanita Modak Fischer, Fuels and Incineration Group, Sector
Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Environmental Protection
Agency,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-5572; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 8, 2021, the EPA published an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) soliciting information
and requesting comments to assist in the potential development of
regulations for pyrolysis and gasification units that are used to
convert solid or semi-solid feedstocks to useful products such as
energy, fuels, and chemical commodities (86 FR 50296). In accordance
with that Notice, the comment period to respond to the ANPRM currently
closes on November 8, 2021. The EPA has received a request to extend
the comment period. After considering the request to extend the public
comment period, the EPA has decided to extend the public comment period
until December 23, 2021. This extension will provide the additional
time requested by the public to review the request and gather
information to respond.

Penny Lassiter,
Director, Sector Policy and Programs Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-24253 Filed 11-4-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39474-39475]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56054; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2007-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change as
Modified by Amendment No. 2 Thereto Relating to Exchange Fees and
Charges

July 12, 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 June 1, 2007, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary NYSE Arca Equities, Inc. (``NYSE
Arca Equities''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
On June 12, 2007, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. On June 29, 2007, the Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 and
submitted Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\3\ This order
provides notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, and approves the proposed rule change, as amended, on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 replaced the original filing in its
entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Charges for
Exchange Services (``Schedule'') by charging Royalty Fees to all
Intermarket Options Linkage orders (``Linkage Orders'') except
Satisfaction Orders. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange'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, 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 III 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 purpose of this proposed rule change is to allow the Exchange
to assess Royalty Fees (aka Surcharge Fees or Licensing Fees) on
Principal orders (``P Orders'') and Principal Acting as Agent orders
(``P/A Orders'') \4\ sent to the Exchange via the Intermarket Linkage
System (``Linkage''). The Exchange proposes to add language to the
footnote associated with Royalty Fees and also include a reference to
said footnote, in the Linkage Fees section of the Schedule. These
changes will explain that Royalty Fees will now be applicable to orders
executed via Linkage, except for Satisfaction Orders.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Section 2(16)(a) and (b) of the Plan for the Purpose of
Creating and Operating an Intermarket Option Linkage (``Linkage
Plan'') for definitions of ``P Orders'' and ``P/A Orders.''
    \5\ See Section 2(16)(c) of the Linkage Plan for definition of
``Satisfaction Order.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain classes of options listed on NYSE Arca have as their
underlying security licensed products that require the Exchange to pay
a Royalty Fee to the licensing entity for every contract traded in that
particular class of options.

Royalty Fees are assessed to the Exchange by a licensing entity through
an agreement which allows the Exchange to trade options on certain
proprietary products. Royalty Fees are not Exchange transaction fees. A
list of all Royalty Fees in place at NYSE Arca is published in the
Schedule and available on the company Web site at http://www.nyse.com.

Presently, Royalty Fees that are charged to the Exchange are passed on
to trade participants on all Firm, Broker-Dealer and Market Maker
transactions in issues that carry a Royalty Fee.
    Linkage Orders (except for Satisfaction Orders) executed on NYSE
Arca are subject to the same fees as other Broker-Dealer orders.\6\
Accordingly, the Exchange now proposes to pass on any Royalty Fees to
options exchanges sending P Orders and P/A Orders through Linkage.
Assessing Royalty Fees on Linkage Orders is consistent with billing
practices presently in place at the Chicago Board Options Exchange, the
American Stock Exchange and the International Securities Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fees imposed on Linkage Orders are subject to an Exchange
Pilot Program and will expire July 31, 2007. On July 10, 2007, the
Exchange filed a proposed rule change with the Commission to extend
the pilot until July 31, 2008. See SR-NYSEArca-2007-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act, in general,\7\ and Section 6(b)(4) in particular,\8\
in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

III. 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-NYSEArca-2007-52 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-NYSEArca-2007-52. 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2007-52 and should
be submitted on or before August 8, 2007.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\9\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds good cause for approving the proposed
rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of publication of the
notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. The Commission notes
that NYSE Arca's proposal to apply fees to P Orders and P/A Orders is
consistent with the practices of other options exchanges.\11\ The
Commission also believes that NYSE Arca's proposal does not raise any
novel regulatory issues. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause,
consistent with Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ to approve the
proposed rule change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51351
(March 9, 2005), 70 FR 12917 (March 16, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-14)
(applying license fees to P Orders and P/A Orders on MNX and NDX
Indexes) and 51858 (June 16, 2005), 70 FR 36218 (June 22, 2005)
(applying license fees to P Orders and P/A Orders on RUI, RUT and
RMN indexes) (SR-ISE-2005-26).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2007-52), as
modified by Amendment No. 2, be and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.

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

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-13878 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41358-41359]
[FR Doc No: C1-2016-14499]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. SIPA-177; File No. SIPC-2016-02]

Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Bylaw Amendments Relating to Assessment of SIPC Members

June 15, 2016.

Correction

    In notice document 2016-14499, appearing on pages 39986 through
39990 in the issue of Monday, June 20, 2016, make the following
corrections:
    1. On page 39986, in the third column, in the document heading,
under SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ``[Release No. SIPA-177; File
No. SIPC-2016-01]'' should read ``[Release No. SIPA-177; File No. SIPC-
2016-02]''.
    2. On page 39989, in the third column, in the fifth paragraph, on
the

third line, ``SIPC-2016-01'' should read ``SIPC-2016-02''.
    3. On page 39989, in the third column, in the seventh paragraph, on
the second line, ``SIPC-2016-01'' should read ``SIPC-2016-02''.
    4. On page 39989, in the third column, in the ninth paragraph, on
the second line, ``SIPC-2016-01'' should read ``SIPC-2016-02''.

[FR Doc. C1-2016-14499 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41545-41546]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16655]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-21-000]

Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of
the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Pompano Compressor
Station 21.5 Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) for the
Pompano Compressor Station 21.5 Project proposed by Florida Gas
Transmission Company, LLC (FGT) in the above-referenced docket. FGT
requests authorization to construct, own, and operate new natural gas
facilities in Broward County, Florida to provide additional delivery
quantities to Florida Power & Light Company's Port Everglades Next
Generation Clean Energy Center.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Pompano Compressor Station 21.5
Project in accordance with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act. FGT's proposed project would include a new
22,000 horsepower electric driven compressor station; 3,100 feet of 18-
and 24-inch-diameter mainline pipeline; and appurtenant facilities in
Broward County, Florida. The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is
available for viewing on the FERC's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the
eLibrary link. A limited number of copies of the EA are available for
distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Copies of the EA were mailed to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; public
interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected
landowners and other interested individuals and groups; newspapers and
libraries in the project area; and parties to this proceeding. Any
person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments should
focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives,
and measures to lessen or avoid environmental impacts. The more
specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that
your comments are properly recorded and considered prior to a
Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive
your comments in Washington, DC on or before August 8, 2014.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP14-21-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has dedicated
eFiling expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Internet Web site at
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents
and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of
formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling
users must first create an account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You
will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. A comment on
a particular project is considered a ``Comment on a Filing;'' or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
    Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply
filing comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the
proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must
file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors
have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion of filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be
granted intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they
have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which would not be
adequately represented by any other parties. You do not need intervenor
status to have your comments considered.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP14-
21). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of

time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you
with notifications of these filings, document summaries, and direct
links to the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp)

    Dated: July 9, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-16655 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P