UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR, PESTICIDES & TOXICS MANAGEMENT DIVISION 61 Forsyth St., S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Fax Number: 404/ 562 9095 Electronic Transmission MEMORANDUM DATE: October 19, 1999 SUBJ: Initial EPA Comments on SCE& G's Urquhart Station FROM: Scott Miller, Environmental Engineer Operating Source Section, ARTB TO: Mr. Matt Wike South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control cc: Mr. Robert Brown, Permit Manager South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Below are initial comments from EPA Region 4 on the above referenced source. Our comments are divided into two categories: 1) Significant Comments and 2) General Comments. Significant comments are defined as those comments that would trigger an objection under 40 CFR Part 70. Given that we have several significant comments on this permit, which was originally submitted as a draft/ proposed permit, EPA no longer considers the permit eligible for parallel review. Please contact me at your convenience in order that we may seek to resolve these issues prior to your submittal of a proposed permit for this source. You may reach me at ( 404) 562 9120. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Significant Comments 1. The periodic monitoring for particulate matter from the electric utility boilers in permit condition 6. B. 1 on page 24 is inadequate. The only monitoring is an annual stack test. This monitoring is not frequent enough since the sources can not in good faith certify compliance with the particulate matter standard for all times during the year. EPA understands that the utility companies desire to have the same monitoring requirements in their title V permits in South Carolina as they do in North Carolina. It should be noted that although the North Carolina electric utility permits were initially issued with this annual test requirement, these same North Carolina permits have been rescinded, and EPA has informed North Carolina that the monitoring requirements must be changed. EPA maintains that once a year monitoring is not adequate, and EPA does not plan on approving this level of monitoring in any state in Region 4. One approach that the State may want to consider is the use of continuous opacity monitoring data to show compliance with the particulate emission standard. The condition given below is one acceptable way for the State to implement periodic monitoring at the utilities to show compliance with the relevant particulate emission rate:

" Pursuant to Regulation 401 KAR 50: 035, Section 7( 1)( c), to meet the periodic monitoring requirement for particulate, the permittee shall use a continuous opacity monitor ( COM). Excluding the startup, shutdown, and once per hour exemption periods, if any six minute average opacity value exceeds the opacity standard, the permittee shall, as appropriate, initiate an inspection of the control equipment and/ or the COM system and make the necessary repairs. If five ( 5) percent or greater of COM data ( excluding startup, shutdown, and malfunction periods, data averaged over six minute period) recorded in a calendar quarter show excursions above the opacity standard, the permittee shall perform a stack test in the following calendar quarter to demonstrate compliance with the particulate standard while operating at representative conditions. The permittee shall submit a compliance test protocol as required by condition Section G( a)( 20) of this permit before conducting the test. The Division may waive this testing requirement upon a demonstration that the cause( s) of the excursions has been corrected, or may require stack tests at any time pursuant to Regulation 401 KAR 50: 045, Performance tests."

The Region's comments on this approach are attached to this letter.

Another similar approach accepted by the Region for facilities that do not generally operate near the allowable particulate emission rate is as follows:

E6. The particulate emissions from this fuel burning installation shall not exceed 0.105 pounds per million Btu of heat input as specified in Paragraph 1200 3 6. 02( 1) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations ( TAPCR).

Compliance Method: Monitoring of this fuelburning source for compliance with the applicable particulate emissions limitations shall be conducted by stack testing in accordance with 40 CFR60, Appendix A, Method 17. This testing shall be performed on a biennial basis and a particulate source test report shall be filed with the Technical Secretary within 60 days after completion of the testing. The source test shall be conducted in accordance with specifications for source sampling given in Chapter 1200 3 12 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations. The continuous in stack opacity monitor( s) shall be fully operational prior to and during this compliance testing. The opacity data generated during this compliance testing shall be incorporated into the test report.

Ten ( 10) days prior to conducting the source test, the permittee shall provide notice of such test of the Technical Secretary to afford him the opportunity to have an observer present.

Should atmospheric sulfates ever become an issue, the Division will reassess the applicability of the test procedure as it relates to this issue. This is per the October 25, 1977 letter to Dr. Peter A. Krenkel, P. E.

Compliance with condition E8 of the permit shall be used as an indicator to determine whether compliance with this condition should be confirmed with a Method 17 test. Within sixty ( 60) days of an exceedance of the de minimis criteria specified in condition E8, the facility will conduct a Method 17 test.

TAPCR 1200 3 9. 02( 11)( e) 1.( iii)

E8. The visible emissions from each stack of this fuel burning installation shall not exceed twenty ( 20) percent opacity except for one  six ( 6) minute period per one ( 1) hour of not more than forty ( 40) percent opacity as specified in Paragraph 1200 3 5. 01( 1) of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations.

Compliance Method: Consistent with the provisions of Paragraph 1200 3 5. 03( 5) of the Regulations, compliance with the applicable visible emissions standards shall be determined from data generated by the opacity monitoring system, provided the quality assurance and operational availability requirements set forth in this permit are met.

Consistent with the provisions of Rule 1200 3 20. 06 of the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations, no notice of violation shall be automatically issued for periods of visible emissions from this fuel burning installation that are in excess of the applicable visible emission standard so long as the total amount of time that the fuel burning installation is exceeding the applicable visible emission standard ( excluding periods of permitted startup, permitted shutdown, or malfunction and periods when the fuel burning installation is not operating) is not in excess of two ( 2) percent of the total amount of time in a calendar quarter. This exemption is applicable provided that good operational and maintenance practices are utilized for both the fuel burning equipment and the associated air pollution control equipment, the required ninety five ( 95) percent operational availability of the opacity monitoring system is maintained, and that no more than one exceedance of greater than twenty four ( 24) hours duration occurs per calendar year.

Written responses to the quarterly reports of excess emissions shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with the applicable visible emission standard. For purposes of annual certification of compliance with the applicable visible emissions condition, the acceptance, by the Division, of the quarterly reports of excess emissions shall be the basis of said certification.

TAPCR 1200 3 20. 06 2. In Table 6.1 Monitoring and Reporting, the facility is required to make one annual visible emissions inspection to demonstrate compliance with 20% and 40% opacity regulations for emission unit 08 and permit condition 6. B. 10 ( the coal handling system). The Region believes that more frequent periodic monitoring is necessary to determine the compliance status of the coal handling system with applicable opacity standards. One acceptable approach to periodic monitoring for the facility in determining compliance with the opacity standard:

" The facility shall do a qualitative emissions evaluation on a daily basis for those emission sources controlled by a control device ( i. e. baghouse). Should the observer see visible emissions, the emissions observer must perform an EPA Method 9 reading and log the results of such a reading. For emission units that are uncontrolled, the facility will conduct an annual EPA Method 9 reading to determine compliance with the applicable opacity standard."

General 1. Permit condition 6. B. 11 on page 27 should be updated to clarify that the continuous opacity monitoring system data is being used to satisfy the opacity periodic monitoring requirement under title V of the Clean Air Act to demonstrate compliance with the applicable opacity limit of 40%. The title V permit should be clear on this point since the language in permit condition 6. B. 11 may give one the mistaken belief that compliance with the 40% opacity standard will be determined based on an annual Method 9 test. One way to effect such a clarification would be to add the following language to permit condition 6. B. 11:

" The data generated by the COMS is the periodic monitoring method chosen to assure compliance with the 40% opacity standard."

2. Permit condition 6. B. 3 on page 25 should be updated to clarify that the quarterly continuous emissions monitoring report for sulfur dioxide is to be based on the CEMS data except when the CEMS data is not available. When the CEMS data is not available, fuel sampling analysis would serve as an acceptable substitute during CEMS unavailability.

4. The Acid Rain Regulation 40 CFR 76.11( a)( 4) requires minimum allowable and maximum allowable heat input values when the ACEL is more or less stringent ( respectively) than the unit's applicable emission limit under § 76.5, 76.6, or 76.7.

5. Please note that the alternative contemporaneous NOx emission limit ( ACEL) listed on the Phase II Averaging Plan for South Carolina Electric and Gas Company for the Urquhart Station unit 3 is identical to the applicable standard limit for that unit, therefore, the requirement that the unit " shall not have an annual heat input greater than 4,098,040 mmBtu," and reference to the heat input limit in the second paragraph of the " NOx limit" should be removed for this unit ( please refer to, " Important Note," in the write up in the " Phase II Acid Rain Permit Writers Guide," Section 10: " NOx Emissions Averaging Compliance Plans."

6. The Btu weighted annual emission rate and the Btu weighted annual average emission rate indicated on the Phase II NOx Averaging plan submitted by South Carolina Electric and Gas Company should be rounded to the nearest one hundredth.

7. Please note that a new NOx compliance Plan must be submitted when an acid rain permit renewal application is due ( see, " Acid Rain Program, Instructions for Phase II NOx Compliance Plan ( 40 CFR 76.9)") . The Acid Rain Permits for this Urquhart Station and McMeekin Station each expire on December 31, 2002. It should be noted that although the NOx emissions averaging plan submitted by South Carolina Electric and Gas is being approved for 2000 through 2004, as indicated under condition 2, " NOx Limit," the source will need to renew their application prior to the expiration of the Phase II permit.


[Federal Register: May 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 101)]
[Notices]
[Page 25593-25595]
[DOCID:fr28my09-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59949; File No. SR-ISE-2007-97]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No.
1, Relating to Market Data Fees

May 20, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On October 5, 2007, International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to establish fees for a real-time
depth of market data offering. On March 9, 2009, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. The proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 7, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59679 (April 1,
2009), 74 FR 15795 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange currently produces and provides free of charge a data
feed that contains the aggregate bid and offer size available at the
first five price levels on ISE's limit order book, the ISE Depth of
Market Data Feed (``Depth of Market''). The Depth of Market feed
includes non-marketable orders and quotes that are displayed, and is
distributed in real time.
    ISE has proposed to establish fees for its Depth of Market product.
ISE will make this product available to members and non-members, and to
professional and non-professional subscribers. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to charge distributors of Depth of Market $5,000 per
month.\4\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to charge each distributor
a monthly fee per controlled device \5\ of $50 per controlled device
for Professionals (for internal use or external redistribution through
a controlled device) and $5 per controlled device for Non-Professionals
who receive the data from a distributor through a controlled device.\6\
ISE proposes to cap the monthly maximum amount of fees payable by a
distributor at $7,500 for Professionals where the data is for internal
use only; $12,500 for Professionals where the data is redistributed
externally; and $10,000 for Non-Professionals who receive the data from
a distributor. The Exchange proposes to charge distributors a flat fee
of $1,000 for the first month after connectivity has been established
between ISE and the distributor. Further, the Exchange proposes to
waive all user fees during this one month period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``distributor'' will be defined as any firm that receives
an ISE data feed directly from ISE or indirectly through a
``redistributor'' and then distributes it either internally or
externally. ISE proposes that all distributors execute an ISE
distributor agreement. ``Redistributors'' will include market data
vendors and connectivity providers such as extranets and private
network providers.
    \5\ A ``controlled device'' is defined as any device that a
distributor of the ISE Depth of Market permits to access the
information in the Depth of Market offering.
    \6\ In differentiating between a ``Non-Professional Subscriber''
and a ``Professional Subscriber,'' ISE will apply the same criteria
for qualification as in the Consolidated Tape Association Plan
(``CTA Plan'') and the Consolidated Quotation Plan (``CQ Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other parties using its facilities, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest, and not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \10\ in that it
does not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed the proposal using the approach set
forth in the NYSE Arca Order for non-core market data fees.\11\ In the
NYSE Arca Order, the Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance
on competitive forces is the most appropriate and effective means to
assess whether the terms for the distribution of non-core data are
equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\12\ It noted that the ``existence of significant competition provides
a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \13\ If an exchange ``was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of a proposal,''
the Commission will approve a proposal unless it determines that
``there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that the terms
nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of the Exchange Act
or the rules thereunder.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (``NYSE
Arca Order'').
    \12\ Id. at 74771.
    \13\ Id. at 74782.
    \14\ Id. at 74781.

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

    As noted in the NYSE Arca Order, the standards in Section 6 of the
Act do not differentiate between types of data and therefore apply to
exchange proposals to distribute both core data and non-core data.\15\
All U.S. options exchanges are required pursuant to the OPRA Plan to
provide ``core data''--the best-priced quotations and comprehensive
last sale reports--to OPRA, which data is then distributed to the
public pursuant to the OPRA Plan.\16\ In contrast, individual exchanges
and other market participants distribute non-core data voluntarily.\17\
The mandatory nature of the core data disclosure regime leaves little
room for competitive forces to determine products and fees.\18\ Non-
core data products and their fees are, by contrast, much more sensitive
to competitive forces. The Commission therefore is able to rely on
competitive forces in its determination of whether an exchange's
proposal to distribute non-core data meets the standards of Section
6.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 74779.
    \16\ See Plan for Reporting of Consolidated Options Last Sale
Reports and Quotation Information (``OPRA Plan''), Sections V(a)-
(c).
    \17\ See NYSE Arca Order, supra, note 11, at 74779.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ISE's instant proposal relates to the distribution of non-
core data, the Commission will apply the market-based approach set
forth in the NYSE Arca Order. Pursuant to this approach, the first step
is to determine whether ISE was subject to significant competitive
forces in setting the terms of its non-core market data proposal,
including the level of any fees. As in the Commission's NYSE Arca
Order, in determining whether ISE was subject to significant
competitive forces in setting the terms of its proposal, the Commission
has analyzed ISE's compelling need to attract order flow from market
participants, and the availability to market participants of
alternatives to purchasing ISE's non-core market data.
    The Commission believes that the options industry currently is
subject to significant competitive forces. It is generally accepted
that the start of wide-spread multiple listing of options across
exchanges in August 1999 greatly enhanced competition among the
exchanges.\20\ The launch of three new options exchanges since that
time, numerous market structure innovations, and the start of the
options penny pilot \21\ have all further intensified intermarket
competition for order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See generally Concept Release: Competitive Developments in
the Options Markets, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49175
(February 3, 2004), 69 FR 6124 (February 9, 2004); see also
Battalio, Robert, Hatch, Brian, and Jennings, Robert, Toward a
National Market System for U.S. Exchange-listed Equity Options, The
Journal of Finance 59 (933-961); De Fontnouvelle, Patrick, Fishe,
Raymond P., and Harris, Jeffrey H., The Behavior of Bid-Ask Spreads
and Volume in Options Markets During the Competition for Listings in
1999, The Journal of Finance 58 (2437-2463); and Mayhew, Stewart,
Competition, Market Structure, and Bid-Ask Spreads in Stock Option
Markets, The Journal of Finance 57 (931-958).
    \21\ See, e.g. , Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55162
(January 24, 2007), 72 FR 4738 (February 1, 2007) (SR-Amex-2006-
106); 55073 (January 9, 2007), 72 FR 4741 (February 1, 2007) (SR-
BSE-2006-48); 55154 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR 4743 (February 1,
2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-92); 55161 (January 24, 2007), 72 FR 4754
(February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-62); 55156 (January 23, 2007), 72 FR
4759 (February 1, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-73); and 55153 (January
23, 2007), 72 FR 4553 (January 31, 2007) (SR-Phlx-2006-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE currently competes with six other options exchanges for order
flow.\22\ Attracting order flow is an essential part of ISE's
competitive success.\23\ If ISE cannot attract order flow to its
market, it will not be able to execute transactions. If ISE cannot
execute transactions on its market, it will not generate transaction
revenue. If ISE cannot attract orders or execute transactions on its
market, it will not have market data to distribute, for a fee or
otherwise, and will not earn market data revenue and thus not be
competitive with other exchanges that have this ability. In its filing,
ISE provided market share data for the seven options exchanges over a
two year period from 2006 through 2008:\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ In its filing, ISE states that ``the options exchanges
compete vigorously for order flow,'' and that ``ISE currently
competes with six other options exchanges for order flow and `the
competition is fierce'.'' See Notice, supra note 3, at 15797.
    \23\ ISE states in its filing that ``[i]n order for ISE to
maintain its market share, it must compete vigorously for order
flow.'' Id.
    \24\ See id.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28MY09.024

    The market share percentages in this chart strongly indicate that
ISE must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its share of
trading volume. This compelling need to attract order flow imposes
significant pressure on ISE to act reasonably in setting its fees for
ISE market data, particularly given that the market participants that
will pay such fees often will be the same market participants from whom
ISE must attract order flow. These market participants include broker-
dealers that control the handling of a large volume of customer and
proprietary order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one
exchange to another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably
high data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on
whose orders it depends for competitive survival.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ In its filing, ISE notes that despite frequent variations
in market share, no single exchange has more than approximately one-
third market share. It further states that, given the current
competitive pressures in the option industry, no exchange can take
any of its share of trading for granted. ISE states that, in order
for it to maintain its market share, it must compete vigorously for
order flow, and that given the portability of order flow from one
exchange to another, a pricing misstep can easily result in loss of
order flow, customers and, ultimately, revenue. See id.

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

    ISE currently trades options on 16 proprietary index products that
are not traded on any other exchange. ISE represents that these 16
options currently represent less than 0.02% of ISE's total contract
volume.\26\ The Commission believes that, given the small percentage of
ISE's total contract volume represented by these 16 products, the
inclusion of data on these products in ISE's Depth of Market product
will not confer market power on ISE to compel market participants to
purchase the entire ISE data feed. The Commission therefore believes
that the inclusion of depth-of-book data for these products in ISE's
Depth of Market product does not undermine the finding that ISE was
subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of its
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. ISE represents that as of March 9, 2009, of the
more than 2,000 underlying securities whose options are traded on
ISE, 41 products are singly listed on ISE, which collectively
represent less than .02 percent of ISE's total contract volume. Of
those 41 products, 16 are proprietary ISE index options, all of
which are available for licensing by ISE to any other exchange, four
are index options that ISE has non-exclusively licensed from index
providers and that are available to other exchanges to license, 10
are options on Exchange Traded Funds that other exchanges have
chosen not to list, and the remaining 11 products are equity options
that either the other exchanges have chosen not to list or are in
the process of being de-listed and thus are available for closing
only transactions on ISE.
    ISE further notes that when another exchange has shown an
interest in trading a proprietary ISE product, the Exchange has
licensed the trading in that product to the other exchange. For
example, ISE represents that NYSE Arca recently signed a license
agreement with ISE to list and trade ISE's foreign currency options,
and that this ISE proprietary product is now multiply listed. ISE
states that it is ready, willing, and able to license its
proprietary index products for trading on other exchanges on
commercially reasonable terms. See id. at 15797 to 15798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to ISE's Depth of Market product significantly affect the
terms on which ISE can distribute this market data.\27\ In setting the
fees for its Depth of Market product, ISE must consider the extent to
which market participants would choose one or more alternatives instead
of purchasing its data.\28\ The most basic source of information
concerning the depth generally available at an exchange is the complete
record of an exchange's transactions that is provided in the core data
feeds.\29\ In this respect, the core data feeds that include an
exchange's own transaction information are a significant alternative to
the exchange's market data product.\30\ Further, other options
exchanges can produce their own depth of market data products, and thus
are sources of potential competition for ISE. In addition, one or more
securities firms could act independently and distribute their own order
data, with or without a fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See NYSE Arca Order, supra note 11, at 74784.
    \28\ See id. at 74783.
    \29\ Id.
    \30\ Id. Information on transactions executed on ISE is
available through OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE states in it is filings that of the nearly 200 firms that are
members of the Exchange, less than 15 percent currently access the
Depth of Market product, which the Exchange has been offering at no
cost.\31\ The fact that many of ISE's own members did not choose to
access the Depth of Market product even when there was no cost for
doing so strongly suggests that ISE does not have monopoly pricing
power for its Depth of Market product.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 15798.
    \32\ In reaching its conclusion in the NYSE Arca Order, the
Commission noted that the fact that 95% of the professional users of
Nasdaq core data (where Nasdaq has a substantial market share in
Nasdaq-listed stocks) choose not to purchase Nasdaq's depth-of-book
market data strongly suggests that no exchange has monopoly pricing
for its depth-of-book order data. See NYSE Arca Order, supra note
11, at 74785.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that there are a number of alternative
sources of information that impose significant competitive pressures on
ISE in setting the terms for distributing its Depth of Market product.
The Commission believes that the availability of those alternatives, as
well as ISE's compelling need to attract order flow, imposed
significant competitive pressure on ISE to act equitably, fairly, and
reasonably in setting the terms of its proposal.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The Commission stated in the NYSE Arca Order that broker-
dealers are not required to obtain depth-of-book order data to meet
their duty of best execution. See id. at 74788 for a more detailed
discussion. Likewise, the Commission does not view obtaining depth-
of-book data as a necessary prerequisite to broker-dealers
satisfying the duty of best execution with respect to the trading of
standardized options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ISE was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of the proposal, the Commission will approve the
proposal in the absence of a substantial countervailing basis to find
that the terms of the proposal fail to meet the applicable requirements
of the Act or the rules thereunder. The Commission did not receive any
comments on the terms of the proposal. Further, an analysis of the
proposal does not provide such a basis. The Commission notes that the
per controlled device fees as proposed will be the same for all
Professional subscribers ($50) and the same for all Non-Professional
subscribers ($5). The fees therefore do not unreasonably discriminate
among types of subscribers, such as by favoring participants in the ISE
market or penalizing participants in other markets.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Commission notes that the CTA participants' fees have
long provided for a lower fee for non-professional subscribers, and
that the fees approved by the Commission in the NYSE Arca Order also
provided for lower fees for non-professional subscribers. See NYSE
Arca Order, supra note 11, at 74772.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change, as amended (SR-ISE-2007-97),
be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12357 Filed 5-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Video (with audio) recordings of the Workshop on Lifecycle Greenhouse
Gas Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Renewable Fuels
Standard Program, June 10-11, 2009 Washington, DC.

Parties that wish to obtain digital video disc (DVD) copies can do so at
the at the EPA Docket Center:  Air and Radiation Docket and Information
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,
Washington DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77090-77091]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24698]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0014; FRL-10969-02-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a public meeting of
the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The EPA renewed the CAAAC
charter on October 31, 2022, to provide independent advice and counsel
to EPA on economic, environmental, technical, scientific and
enforcement policy issues associated with implementation of the Clean
Air Act of 1990.

DATES: The CAAAC will hold its next hybrid public meeting; in-person at
EPA Headquarters, Washington, DC and virtual on Thursday, December 7,
2023, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (EST). Members of the public may register
to attend or listen to the meeting or provide comments, by emailing
[email protected] by 5:00 (EST) December 5, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lorraine Reddick, Designated Federal
Official, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (6103A), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected]. Additional information about this meeting,
the CAAAC, and its subcommittees and workgroups can be found on the
CAAAC website: http://www.epa.gov/caaac/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. 2 section
10(a)(2),

notice is hereby given that the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee will
hold its next hybrid public meeting on Thursday, December 7, 2023, from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (EST).
    The committee agenda and any documents prepared for the meeting
will be publicly available on the CAAAC website at http://www.epa.gov/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with
CAAAC meeting minutes, will be available on the CAAAC website or by
contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and requesting
information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0014. The docket office can be
reached by email at: [email protected] or FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Lorraine Reddick at
[email protected], preferably at least 7 days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

Lorraine Reddick,
Designated Federal Officer, Office of Air Policy and Program Support.
[FR Doc. 2023-24698 Filed 11-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 45)]
[Notices]
[Page 11616]
[DOCID:fr08mr06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Combined Notice of Filings for ``ES'' Dockets

March 1, 2006.
    Take notice that, effective March 15, 2006, the Commission will
include ``Applications for Authorization of the Issuance of Securities
or the Assumption of Liabilities'' under 18 CFR 34 in Combined Notices
of Filings for publication in the Federal Register. Due to the
anticipated increase in the number of ``ES'' filings, the Commission
will no longer issue individual notices for these filings, except in
the case of Errata notices pertaining to these filings. A Combined
Notice of Filings may include both ``ER'' (electric rate) and ``ES''
dockets.
    The Secretary of the Commission is making the following changes to
the filing procedures for ``Applications for Authorization of the
Issuance of Securities or the Assumption of Liabilities'' received on
or after March 15, 2006:
    1. A draft form of notice and diskette are no longer required for
``ES'' filings.
    2. Filers requesting a comment period shorter than the standard 21
days after the filed date must clearly state such request in the
``Re:'' section of the filing. For example:

Re: Hot Spring Power Company, Docket No. ES05----, Request for
shortened comment period.

    The notices issued under the combined notice method will be added
to eLibrary and published in the Federal Register under the name
``Combined Notice of Filings.'' The notices will list up to 20 ``ER''
and ``ES'' docketed filings that are already in eLibrary. The listing
for each filing will include:

    Docket Number: This docket number is a hyperlink to the eLibrary
docket sheet.
    Applicant(s): The applicant name(s) as it appears on the filing.
    Description: A basic description of the filing that is a hyperlink
to the document in eLibrary.
    Filed Date: The date the document was filed with the Secretary of
the Commission.
    Accession Number: The eLibrary accession number is a hyperlink to
the ``Info'' area of eLibrary for the document. If the accession number
for the filing changes after issuance of the combined notice, the user
will have to search eLibrary to access the document.
    Comment Date: This is the date/time for the filing of comments on
the particular filing.
    The Combined Notice of Filings will be indexed in eLibrary as:
``Combined Notice of Filings, (date)'' under each docket included in
the notice. If the Commission issues more than one combined notice on
any given day, the second notice will be indexed as: ``Combined Notice
of Filings, (date) 2'' and so forth.
    For general information about the Combined Notice of Filings
method, contact Mary Lynch or Capria Johnson at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3210 Filed 3-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 241)]
[Notices]
[Page 71475-71478]
[DOCID:fr17de07-124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2008-22842]

Notice of Opportunity To Participate, Criteria Requirements and
Application Procedure for Participation in the Military Airport Program
(MAP)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of criteria and application procedures for designation
or redesignation, for the fiscal year 2008 MAP.

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

SUMMARY: In anticipation of congress enacting an extension of the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) the FAA is publishing this annual
notice. This notice announces the criteria, application procedures, and
schedule to be applied by the Secretary of Transportation in
designating or redesignating, and funding capital development annually
for up to 15 current (joint-use) or former military airports seeking
designation or redesignation to participate in the MAP. While FAA
currently has continuing authority to designate or redesignate
airports, FAA does not have authority to issue grants for fiscal year
2008 MAP, and will not have authority until Congress enacts legislation
enabling FAA to issue grants.
    The MAP allows the Secretary to designate current (joint-use) or
former military airports to receive grants from

the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The Secretary is authorized to
designate an airport (other than an airport designated before August
24, 1994) only if:
    (1) The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under the Title 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2687 (announcement of closures
of large Department of Defense installations after September 30, 1977),
or under Section 201 or 2905 of the Defense Authorization Amendments
and Base Closure and Realignment Acts; or
    (2) The airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations.
    The Secretary shall consider for designation only those current or
former military airports, at least partly converted to civilian
airports as part of the national air transportation system, that will
reduce delays at airports with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays
in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings, or will enhance
airport and air traffic control system capacity in metropolitan areas,
or reduce current and projected flight delays (49 U.S.C. 47118(c)).

DATES: Applications must be received on or before February 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit an original and two copies of Standard Form (SF) 424,
``Application for Federal Assistance,'' prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-102, available at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/northwest_mountain/airports_resources/forms/media/applications/application_sf_424.doc

ces/forms/media/applications/application_sf_424.doc

should specifically request to be considered for designation or
redesignation to participate in the fiscal year 2008 MAP. Submission
should be sent to the Regional FAA Airports Division or Airports
District Office that serves the airport. Applicants may find the proper
office on the FAA Web site http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/
 or may contact the office below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kendall Ball
Kendall.Ball@faa.gov), Airports Financial Assistance Division (APP-
500), Office of Airport Planning and Programming, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Description of the Program

    The MAP provides capital development assistance to civil airport
sponsors of designated current (joint-use) military airfields or former
military airports that are included in the FAA's National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Airports designated to the MAP may
obtain funds from a set-aside (currently four percent) of AIP
discretionary funds for airport development, including certain projects
not otherwise eligible for AIP assistance. These airports are also
eligible to receive grants from other categories of AIP funding.

Number of Airports

    A maximum of 15 airports per fiscal year (FY) may participate in
the MAP. There are 7 slots available for designation or redesignation
in FY 2008. Of the seven slots available, there is one general aviation
slot. Term of Designation.
    The maximum term is five fiscal years following designation. The
FAA can designate airports for a period of less than five years. The
FAA will evaluate the conversion needs of the airport in its capital
development plan to determine the appropriate length of designation.

Redesignation

    Previously designated airports may apply for redesignation of an
additional term not to exceed five years. Those airports must meet
current eligibility requirements in the 49 U.S.C. 47118(a) at the
beginning of each grant period and have MAP eligible projects. The FAA
will evaluate applications for redesignation primarily in terms of
warranted projects fundable only under the MAP as these candidates tend
to have fewer conversion needs than new candidates. The FAA wants MAP
airports to graduate to regular AIP participation.

Eligible Projects

    In addition to eligible AIP projects, MAP can fund fuel farms,
utility systems, surface automobile parking lots, hangers, and air
cargo terminals up to 50,000 square feet. Designated or redesignated
military airports can receive not more than $7,000,000 for each fiscal
year after 2005 for projects to construct, improve, or repair terminal
building facilities. Designated or redesignated military airports can
receive not more than $7,000,000 for each fiscal year after 2005 for
MAP eligible projects that include hangers, cargo facilities, fuel
farms, automobile surface parking, and utility work.

Designation Consideration

    In making designations of new candidate airports, the Secretary of
Transportation may only designate an airport (other than an airport so
designated before August 24, 1994) if it meets the following general
requirements:
    (1) The airport is a former military installation closed or
realigned under:
    (A) Section 2687 of Title 10;
    (B) Section 201 of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Closure and Realignment Act (BRAC) (10 U.S.C. 2687 note); or
    (C) Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note); or
    (2) The airport is a military installation with both military and
civil aircraft operations; and
    (3) The airport is classified as a commercial service or reliever
airport in the NPIAS. (See 49 U.S.C. 47105(b)(2)). One of the
designated airports, if included in the NPIAS, may be a general
aviation (GA) airport (public airport other than an air carrier
airport, 49 U.S.C. 47102(1), (20)) that was a former military
installation closed or realigned under BRAC, as amended, or 10 U.S.C.
2687. (See 49 U.S.C. 47118(g)). A general aviation airport must qualify
under (1) above.
    In designating new candidate airports, the Secretary shall consider
if a grant would:
    (1) Reduced delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of
annual delays in commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings;
or
    (2) Enhance airport and air traffic control system capacity in a
metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight delays.
    The application for new designations will be evaluated in terms of
how the proposed projects would contribute to reducing delays and/or
how the airport would enhance air traffic or airport system capacity
and provide adequate user services.

Project Evaluation

    Recently realigned or closed military airports, as well as active
military airfields with new joint-use agreements, have the greatest
need of funding to convert to, or to incorporate, civil airport
operations. Newly converted airports and new joint-use locations
frequently have minimal capital development resources and will
therefore receive priority consideration for designation and MAP
funding. The FAA will evaluate the need for eligible projects based
upon information in the candidate airport's five-year Airport Capital
Improvement Plan (ACIP). These projects need to be related to
development of that airport and/or the air traffic control system
capacity.

    1. The FAA will evaluate candidate airports and/or the airports
such candidate airports would relieve based on the following specific
factors:
     Compatibility of airport roles and the ability of the
airport to provide an adequate airport facility;
     The capability of the candidate airport and its airside
and landside complex to serve aircraft that otherwise must use the
relieved airport;
     Landside surface access;
     Airport operational capability, including peak hour and
annual capacities of the candidate airport;
     Potential of other metropolitan area airports to relieve
the congested airport;
     Ability to satisfy, relieve, or meet air cargo demand
within the metropolitan area;
     Forecasted aircraft and passenger levels, type of
commercial service anticipated, i.e., scheduled or charter commercial
service;
     Type and capacity of aircraft projected to serve the
airport and level of operations at the relieved airport and the
candidate airport;
     The potential for the candidate airport to be served by
aircraft or users, including the airlines, serving the congested
airport;
     Ability to replace an existing commercial service or
reliever airport serving the area; and
     Any other documentation to support the FAA designation of
the candidate airport.
    2. The FAA will evaluate the development needs that, if funded,
would make the airport a viable civil airport that will enhance system
capacity or reduce delays.

Application Procedures and Required Documentation

    Airport sponsors applying for designation or redesignation must
complete and submit an SF 424, Application for Federal Assistance, and
provide supporting documentation to the appropriate FAA Airports
regional or district office serving that airport.
    Standard Form 424:
    Sponsors may obtain this fillable form at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/regional_guidance/northwest_mountain/airports_resources/forms/media/applications/application_sf_424.doc
.

orms/media/applications/application_sf_424.doc
.

following:
     Mark Item 1, Type of Submission as a ``pre-application''
and indicate it is for ``construction''.
     Mark Item 8, Type of Application as ``new'', and in
``other'', fill in ``Military Airport Program''.
     Fill in Item 11, Descriptive Title of Applicants Project.
``Designation (or redesignation) to the Military Airport Program''.
     In Item 15a, Estimated Funding, indicate the total amount
of funding requested from the MAP during the entire term for which you
are applying.

Supporting Documentation

    (A) Identification as a Current or Former Military Airport. The
application must identify the airport as either a current or former
military airport and indicate whether it was:
    (1) Closed or realigned under Section 201 of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, and/or
Section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(Installations Approved for Closure by the Defense Base Realignment and
Closure Commission), or
    (2) Closed or realigned pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2687 as excess
property (bases announced for closure by Department of Defense (DOD)
pursuant to this title after September 30, 1977 (this is the date of
announcement for closure and not the date the property was deeded to
the airport sponsor)), or
    (3) A military installation with both military and civil aircraft
operations. A general aviation airport applying for the MAP may be
joint-use but must also qualify under (1) or (2) above.
    (B) Qualifications for MAP:
    Submit documents for (1) through (7) below:
    (1) Documentation that the airport meets the definition of a
``public airport'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 47102(20).
    (2) Documentation indicating the required environmental review for
civil reuse or joint-use of the military airfield has been completed.
This environmental review need not include review of the individual
projects to be funded by the MAP. Rather, the documentation should
reflect that the environmental review necessary to convey the property,
enter into a long-term lease, or finalize a joint-use agreement has
been completed. The military department conveying or leasing the
property, or entering into a joint-use agreement, has the lead
responsibility for this environmental review. To meet AIP requirements
the environmental review and approvals must indicate that the operator
or owner of the airport has good title, satisfactory to the Secretary,
or assures that good title will be acquired.
    (3) For a former military airport, documentation that the eligible
airport sponsor holds or will hold satisfactory title, a long-term
lease in furtherance of conveyance of property for airport purposes, or
a long-term interim lease for 25 years or longer to the property on
which the civil airport is being located. Documentation that an
application for surplus or BRAC airport property has been accepted by
the Federal Government is sufficient to indicate the eligible airport
sponsor holds or will hold satisfactory title or a long-term lease.
    (4) For a current military airport, documentation that the airport
sponsor has an existing joint-use agreement with military department
having jurisdiction over the airport. For all first time applicants a
copy of the existing joint-use agreement must be submitted with the
application. This is necessary so the FAA can legally issue grants to
the sponsor. Here and in (3) directly above, the airport must posses
the necessary property rights in order to accept a grant for its
proposed projects during FY 2008.
    (5) Documentation that the airport is classified as a ``commercial
service airport'' or a ``reliever airport'' as defined in 49 U.S.C.
47102(7) and 47102(22), unless the airport is applying for the general
aviation slot.
    (6) Documentation that the airport owner is an eligible airport
``sponsor'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(24).
    (7) Documentation that the airport has a FAA approved airport
layout plan (ALP) and a five-year airport capital improvement plan
(ACIP) indicating all eligible grant projects proposed to be funded
either from the MAP or other portions of the AIP.
    (C) Evaluation Factors:
    Submit information on the items below to assist in our evaluation:
(1) Information identifying the existing and potential levels of visual
or instrument operations and aeronautical activity at the current or
former military airport and, if applicable, the relieved airport. Also,
if applicable, information on how the airport contributes to air
traffic system or airport system capacity. If served by commercial air
carriers, the revenue passenger and cargo levels should be provided.
    (2) A description of the airport's projected civil role and
development needs for transitioning from use as a military airfield to
a civil airport. Include how development projects would serve to reduce
delays at an airport with more than 20,000 hours of annual delays in
commercial passenger aircraft takeoffs and landings; or enhance
capacity in a metropolitan area or reduce current and projected flight
delays.

    (3) A description of the existing airspace capacity. Describe how
anticipated new operations would affect the surrounding airspace and
air traffic flow patterns in the metropolitan area in or near the
airport. Include a discussion of whether operations at this airport
create airspace conflicts that may cause congestion or whether air
traffic works into the flow of other air traffic in the area.
    (4) A description of the airport's five-year ACIP, including a
discussion of major projects, their priorities, projected schedule for
project accomplishment, and estimated costs. The ACIP must specifically
identify the safety, capacity, and conversion-related projects,
associated costs, and projected five-year schedule of project
construction, including those requested for consideration for MAP
funding.
    (5) A description of those projects that are consistent with the
role of the airport and effectively contribute to the joint-use or
conversion of the airfield to a civil airport. The projects can be
related to various improvement categories depending on what is needed
to convert from military to civil airport use, to meet required civil
airport standards, and/or to provide capacity to the airport and/or
airport system. The projects selected (e.g., safety-related,
conversion-related, and/or capacity-related), must be identified and
fully explained based on the airport's planned use. Those projects that
may be eligible under MAP, if needed for conversion- or capacity-
related purposes, must be clearly indicated, and include the following
information:

Airside

     Modification of airport or military airfield for safety
purposes, including airport pavement modifications (e.g., widening),
marking, lighting, strengthening, drainage or modifying other
structures or features in the airport environs to meet civil standards
for airport imaginary surfaces as described in 14 CFR part 77.
     Construction of facilities or support facilities such as
passenger terminal gates, aprons for passenger terminals, taxiways to
new terminal facilities, aircraft parking, and cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use.
     Modification of airport or military utilities (electrical
distribution systems, communications lines, water, sewer, storm
drainage) to meet civil standards. Also, modifications that allow
utilities on the civil airport to operate independently, where other
portions of the base are conveyed to entities other than the airport
sponsor or retained by the Government.
     Purchase, rehabilitation, or modification of airport and
airport support facilities and equipment, including snow removal,
aircraft rescue, fire fighting buildings and equipment, airport
security, lighting vaults, and reconfiguration or relocation of
eligible buildings for more efficient civil airport operations.
     Modification of airport or military airfield fuel systems
and fuel farms to accommodate civil aviation use.
     Acquisition of additional land for runway protection
zones, other approach protection, or airport development.
     Cargo facility requirements.
     Modifications, which will permit the airfield to
accommodate general aviation users.

Landside

     Construction of surface parking areas and access roads to
accommodate automobiles in the airport terminal and air cargo areas and
provide an adequate level of access to the airport.
     Construction or relocation of access roads to provide
efficient and convenient movement of vehicular traffic to, on, and from
the airport, including access to passenger, air cargo, fixed base
operations, and aircraft maintenance areas.
     Modification or construction of facilities such as
passenger terminals, surface automobile parking lots, hangars, air
cargo terminal buildings, and access roads to cargo facilities to
accommodate civil use.
    (6) An evaluation of the ability of surface transportation
facilities (road, rail, high-speed rail, maritime) to provide
intermodal connections.
    (7) A description of the type and level of aviation and community
interest in the civil use of a current or former military airport.
    (8) One copy of the FAA-approved ALP for each copy of the
application. The ALP or supporting information should clearly show
capacity and conversion-related projects. Other information such as
project costs, schedule, project justification, other maps and drawings
showing the project locations, and any other supporting documentation
that would make the application easier to understand should also be
included. You may also provide photos, which would further describe the
airport, projects, and otherwise clarify certain aspects of this
application. These maps and ALPs should be cross-referenced with the
project costs and project descriptions.

Redesignation of Airports Previously Designated and Applying for up to
an Additional Five Years in the Program

    Airports applying for redesignation to the Military Airport Program
must submit the same information required by new candidate airports
applying for a new designation. On the SF 424, Application for Federal
Assistance, prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-102, airports must indicate their application is for redesignation to
the MAP. In addition to the above information, they must explain:
    (1) Why a redesignation and additional MAP-eligible project funding
is needed to accomplish the conversion to meet the civil role of the
airport and the preferred time period for redesignation not to exceed
five years;
    (2) Why funding of eligible work under other categories of AIP or
other sources of funding would not accomplish the development needs of
the airport; and
    (3) Why, based on the previously funded MAP projects, the projects
and/or funding level were insufficient to accomplish the airport
conversion needs and development goals.
    This notice is issued pursuant to Title 49 U.S.C. 47118.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on December 7, 2007.
Wayne Herbeck,
Deputy Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 07-6068 Filed 12-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51041-51044]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17384]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2021-0837; FRL-10029-01-R6]

Air Plan Approval; New Mexico; Clean Air Act Requirements for
Nonattainment New Source Review Permitting for the 2015 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions
to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the
State of New Mexico on August 10, 2021, that update the New Mexico
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting program for the 2015
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 19,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2021-0837, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. 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, please contact Adina Wiley, (214) 665-
2115, [email protected]. For 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.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6 Office, Air
Permits Section (ARPE),<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. Out of an
abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff, the EPA
Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. We encourage the public to submit comments via
https://www.regulations.gov. Please call or email the contact listed
above if you need alternative access to material indexed but not
provided in the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    Ozone is a gas that is formed by the reaction of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) in the
atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. These precursors (VOC and
NOX) are emitted by many types of pollution sources,
including point sources such as power plants and industrial emissions
sources; on-road and off-road mobile sources (motor vehicles and
engines); and smaller residential and commercial sources, such as dry
cleaners, auto body shops, and household paints, collectively referred
to as area sources.
    On October 1, 2015, the EPA revised both the primary and secondary
ozone NAAQS \1\ from a concentration level of 0.075 part per million
(ppm) to 0.070 ppm to provide increased protection of public health and
the environment (80 FR 65296, October 26, 2015). The 2015 8-hour ozone
NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 0.075 ppm
NAAQS set in 2008. Specifically, the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
attained when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily
maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less
than or equal to 0.070 ppm.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The primary ozone standards provide protection for children,
older adults, and people with asthma or other lung diseases, and
other at-risk populations against an array of adverse health effects
that include reduced lung function, increased respiratory symptoms
and pulmonary inflammation; effects that contribute to emergency
department visits or hospital admissions; and mortality. The
secondary ozone standards protect against adverse effects to the
public welfare, including those related to impacts on sensitive
vegetation and forested ecosystems. See CAA Section 109(b).
    \2\ For a detailed explanation of the calculation of the 3-year
8-hour average, see 80 FR 65296 and 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) part 50, appendix U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2018 (83 FR 10376), the EPA published the
Classifications Rule that prescribes how the statutory classifications
will apply for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS, including the air quality
thresholds for each classification category and attainment deadline
associated with each classification.
    On June 4, 2018 (83 FR 25776), the EPA designated the Sunland Park
Area in southern Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico as marginal
nonattainment for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS with an attainment
deadline of August 3, 2021.\3\ On November 30, 2021 (86 FR 67864), the
EPA expanded the marginal nonattainment area that previously only
included the Sunland Park Area in Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico to
also include El Paso County, Texas and renamed the marginal
nonattainment designated area as the El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM
nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The specific portion of New Mexico included in the
nonattainment area is defined as the area bounded on the New Mexico-
Texas state line on the east, the New Mexico-Mexico international
line on the south, latitude N31[deg]49'0'' on the north, and
longitude W106[deg]36'36'' on the west. See 83 FR 25776, 25820.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 6, 2018 (83 FR 6299), the EPA published the
Nonattainment Area SIP Requirements rule that establishes the minimum
elements that must be included in all nonattainment SIPs, including the
requirements for NNSR permitting.
    On August 10, 2021, the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED)
submitted a SIP revision to the New Mexico NNSR permitting program to

address the requirements of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

    A NNSR permitting program for ozone nonattainment areas is required
by the CAA section 182(a)(2)(C). The NNSR requirements are further
defined in 40 CFR part 51, subpart I (Review of New Sources and
Modifications). NNSR permits for ozone authorize construction of new
major sources or major modifications of existing sources of
NOX or VOC in an area that is designated nonattainment for
the ozone NAAQS. New major sources or major modifications at existing
sources in an ozone nonattainment area must comply with the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER) and obtain sufficient emission offsets
for emissions of NOX or VOC. Emissions thresholds and
pollutant offset requirements under the NNSR program are based on the
nonattainment area's classification. For Marginal ozone nonattainment
areas, major sources are any stationary source or group of sources
located within a contiguous area and under common control that emits,
or has the potential to emit, at least 100 tons per year of
NOX or VOC (CAA sections 182(a) and 182(f)). The NNSR offset
ratio for Marginal ozone nonattainment areas must be at least 1.1 to 1
(CAA section 182(a)(4)). NNSR programs must also provide the
opportunity for public involvement in the permitting process through
notification of the proposed actions and providing review and comment
periods to the public (40 CFR 51.165(i)).

A. Evaluation of the Revisions to the New Mexico NNSR Regulations

    The current federally approved New Mexico SIP includes an NNSR
permitting program at 20.2.79 New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC).
Upon designation of the Sunland Park area as Marginal nonattainment,
the NMED initiated an internal review of the New Mexico NNSR permitting
rules and determined their rules would need to be updated to maintain
consistency with the Federal NNSR permitting requirements at 40 CFR
51.165. New Mexico adopted these updates on July 21, 2021. These
updates were submitted to the EPA on August 10, 2021, as a revision to
the New Mexico SIP. Following is a summary of our analysis of the
August 10, 2021, submitted revisions. Please refer to the Technical
Support Document for this proposed action, available in the rulemaking
docket, for the full detailed analysis.
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised to include the current
effective date of the New Mexico regulations of August 21, 2021. This
non-substantive revision is approvable and necessary to keep the New
Mexico SIP updated with the current New Mexico regulations.
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised to update the
definitions used throughout the New Mexico NNSR permitting program. The
revisions summarized below are substantive edits that are approvable
and necessary to maintain consistency with Federal requirements.
    [cir] The definition of ``net emissions increase'' at <IP_ADDRESS>(Z)
NMAC was updated to revise internal cross-references and is consistent
with the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(vi).
    [cir] The definition of ``nonattainment area'' at <IP_ADDRESS>(AA)
NMAC was revised to align with the designation process followed by the
EPA under CAA section 107.
    [cir] The definition of ``potential to emit'' at <IP_ADDRESS>(AE) NMAC
was revised to state that secondary emissions do not count in
determining the potential to emit of a stationary source, consistent
with the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(iii).
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised to update the address
of the NMED, Air Quality Bureau. This non-substantive revision is
approvable and necessary to ensure that the public and regulated
community can obtain any documents cited in the NNSR regulations.
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised at <IP_ADDRESS>(A)(2),
<IP_ADDRESS>(E), <IP_ADDRESS>(J), <IP_ADDRESS>(K), and <IP_ADDRESS>(L). The
revisions to 202.2.79(A)(2) substantively revise the existing SIP
language to mirror the Federal requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(b)(1) and
(2). The revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>(E), (J) and (K) are non-substantive
revisions to update internal cross-references and clarify existing rule
language. The revisions to <IP_ADDRESS>(L) substantively revise the
existing SIP language to mirror the Federal requirements at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(9)(iv).
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised at <IP_ADDRESS>(F)(1)
NMAC to specify that emission reductions achieved by shutting down an
existing emission unit or curtailing production or operating hours may
be generally creditable for emission offset purposes if the reduction
is surplus in addition to being permanent, quantifiable and federally
enforceable. This substantive revision is approvable and necessary to
ensure that the New Mexico NNSR program is consistent with the Federal
requirements at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1).
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised at <IP_ADDRESS>(B)(7)
NMAC to correctly identify the input rate for fossil fuel boilers
listed as fugitive emission source categories as 250 million British
Thermal Units (mmBTU)/hr instead of 50 mmBTU/hr. This substantive
revision is approvable and necessary to ensure the New Mexico NNSR
program is consistent with the Federal requirements at 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(C)(21).
     Section <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC was revised at <IP_ADDRESS>(I)(5)
to update an internal cross-reference to another portion of the New
Mexico NNSR program rules. This revision is approvable and necessary to
ensure the permitting program functions as intended.

B. Evaluation of How the New Mexico NNSR Program Satisfies the 2015 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS Requirements

    The Sunland Park Area in southern Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New
Mexico is designated as marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Under the SIP-approved requirement at <IP_ADDRESS>(A)(1)
NMAC, the New Mexico NNSR permitting program applies to any new major
sources or major modifications that will be located within a
nonattainment area designated pursuant to Section 107 of the CAA. New
major sources or major modifications at existing sources, that emit or
have the potential to emit, at least 100 tons per year of
NOX or VOC, are required to comply with the LAER and obtain
emission offsets at the Marginal classification ratio of 1.1 to 1. The
New Mexico NNSR program at <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC ensures the public will be
notified by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the
area in which the proposed major stationary source or major
modification will be constructed and provided with a 45-day review and
comment period.
    Therefore, we propose to find that the New Mexico SIP includes the
necessary provisions addressing the CAA NNSR requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas classified as Marginal. The New Mexico submittal
only addresses the 2015 8-hour ozone requirements for the portion of
the El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM nonattainment area within the State of
New Mexico. The State of Texas is responsible for the portions of Texas
within the same nonattainment area; the EPA will evaluate any
submissions from the State of Texas independent of the New Mexico
submissions.

III. Proposed Action

    Pursuant to section 110 and part D of the Act, we are proposing to
approve the

submitted revisions to the New Mexico SIP that update the NNSR
permitting requirements to maintain consistency with the Federal NNSR
program requirements and address the 2015 ozone NAAQS requirements for
nonattainment permitting. Specifically, we are proposing to approve the
following revisions to the New Mexico SIP adopted on July 21, 2021,
effective August 21, 2021:
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Effective Date,
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Definitions,
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Documents,
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Applicability,
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Emission Offsets,
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Tables, and
     Revisions to <IP_ADDRESS> NMAC--Actuals Plantwide
Applicability Limits (PALs).

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.'' \4\ The EPA is
providing additional analysis of environmental justice associated with
this action. We are doing so for the purpose of providing information
to the public, not as a basis of our proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires
the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment,
attainment, or unclassifiable. Consistent with Executive Order 12898,
area designations address environmental justice concerns by ensuring
that the public is properly informed about the air quality in an area.
The EPA addressed environmental justice concerns related to our
designation of the Sunland Park Area of Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New
Mexico as marginal nonattainment in our June 4, 2018, final rule. If an
area is designated nonattainment of the NAAQS, the CAA requires the
state authority to establish a nonattainment permitting program that
will assist the area in attaining the NAAQS.
    For this proposed action, the EPA conducted screening analyses
using the EJScreen (Version 2.0) tool to provide additional information
to the public regarding the environmental and demographic indicators
within the Sunland Park Area of Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico in
the El Paso-Las Cruces 2015 8-hour Ozone Nonattainment area. EJScreen
is an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides
the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining
various environmental and demographic indicators.\5\ The EJScreen tool
presents these indicators at a Census block group (CBG) level or a
larger user-specified ``buffer'' area that covers multiple CBGs.\6\ An
individual CBG is a cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census
tract and generally contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJScreen is
not a tool for performing in-depth risk analysis, but is instead a
screening tool that provides an initial representation of indicators
related to environmental justice and is subject to uncertainty in some
underlying data (e.g., some environmental indicators are based on
monitoring data which are not uniformly available; others are based on
self-reported data).\7\ We present EJScreen environmental indicators to
help screen for locations where residents may experience a higher
overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block group with
the same total population. These indicators of overall pollution burden
include estimates of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5) and
ozone concentration, a score for traffic proximity and volume,
percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint indicator), and scores
for proximity to Superfund sites, risk management plan (RMP) sites, and
hazardous waste facilities.\8\ EJScreen also provides information on
demographic indicators, including percent low-income, communities of
color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EJScreen tool is available at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
    \6\ See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/about/glossary.html.
    \7\ In addition, EJScreen relies on the five-year block group
estimates from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. The
advantage of using five-year over single-year estimates is increased
statistical reliability of the data (i.e., lower sampling error),
particularly for small geographic areas and population groups. For
more information, see https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/acs/acs_general_handbook_2020.pdf.
    \8\ For additional information on environmental indicators and
proximity scores in EJScreen, see ``EJSCREEN Environmental Justice
Mapping and Screening Tool: EJSCREEN Technical Documentation,''
Chapter 3 and Appendix C (September 2019) at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/documents/ejscreen_technical_document.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 27, 2022, the EPA conducted a review of the EJScreen
reports for the approximate 24 square miles contained in the portion of
the ozone nonattainment area within Sunland Park, New Mexico. The
complete report is available in the public docket for this action. The
Environmental Justice Index for eight of the twelve EJScreen indicators
exceed the 80th percentile in the United States; seven of the twelve
EJScreen indicators exceed the 80th percentile in the State of New
Mexico. Five of the twelve indicators exceed the 90th percentile in
both the State of New Mexico and the United States, including indices
for particulate matter 2.5, ozone, air toxics cancer risk, air toxics
respiratory, and wastewater discharge. This analysis showed an
approximate population of 13,051 residents based on the 2010 Census.
Within this area, EJScreen identified that approximately 98% of the
population are people of color with 71% identified as low income.
Additionally, approximately 38% of the population is linguistically
isolated and 40% of the population has less than a high school
education.
    This proposed action addresses a revision to the New Mexico NNSR
permitting program that will apply in the Sunland Park Area of
Do[ntilde]a Ana County, New Mexico in the El Paso-Las Cruces 2015 8-
hour ozone nonattainment area. The New Mexico NNSR permitting program
will require new major sources and major modifications at existing
sources, that emit or have the potential to emit, at least 100 tons per
year of NOX or VOC, to comply with LAER and obtain emission
offsets in a ratio of 1.1 to 1; this should result in a reduction in
overall emissions with the introduction of newly permitted major
sources and major modifications and improve air

quality in the area. Further, the State of New Mexico must provide 30-
day public notice for all proposed permitting actions for new major
sources and major modifications going through NNSR permitting. The NMED
provided public review and comment on the revisions to the New Mexico
NNSR permitting program.\9\ The EPA is also providing a 30-day public
comment period on our proposed approval of the submitted revisions to
the New Mexico NNSR permitting program. For these reasons, this
proposed action is not anticipated to have a disproportionately high or
adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with
environmental justice concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NMED proposed revisions to the New Mexico NNSR Program
on April 20, 2021, with a public hearing held on June 25, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, we are proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, we are proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to the New Mexico regulations as described in the
Section III of this preamble, Proposed Action. We have made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov (please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 5, 2022.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2022-17384 Filed 8-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P