                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION III
	1650 Arch Street
	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for the Lancaster 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Area

FROM:	Asrah Khadr, Environmental Engineer, EIT		/s/
            Office of Air Program Planning

TO:	File

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director 		/s/
            Office of Air Program Planning

A.  BACKGROUND:

On November 19, 2012, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) submitted a revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's (Pennsylvania) State Implementation Plan (SIP).  The SIP revision consists of updated Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) for nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).  The SIP revision also includes an updated point source inventory for NOx and VOCs.  The updated budgets were calculated using the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator model (MOVES2010a).  The intention of the revised SIP is to replace the approved MOBILE6.2-based MVEBs with budgets based on MOVES2010a and to ensure that the SIP revision still provides for attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38856), EPA established the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.  On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23860), Lancaster County was designated as nonattainment for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.  On September 20, 2006, Pennsylvania DEP submitted a SIP revision which consisted of a maintenance plan, a 2002 base year inventory and MVEBs for transportation conformity purposes.  On November 8, 2006, Pennsylvania DEP supplemented their September 20, 2006 submittal.  On July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36889), EPA approved the SIP revision as well as the redesignation request made by Pennsylvania DEP and Lancaster County was redesignated as a maintenance area.

The MVEBs are a mobile source inventory to which an area's transportation improvement program (TIP) and long range transportation plan must conform.  Conformity to MVEBs in a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or any required interim milestones.  This January 31, 2013 SIP revision submittal provides updated MVEBs for NOx and VOCs.  The budgets were developed utilizing MOVES2010a.  On March 2, 2010 (75 FR 9411), EPA published a notice of availability for the MOVES2010 model for use in SIP submissions and started a two year grace period for the use of MOVES2010 for transportation conformity purposes.  The two year grace period was scheduled to end on March 2, 2012.  On February 27, 2012 (77 FR 11394), EPA published a final rule extending the grace period another year to March 2, 2013 to ensure adequate time for affected parties to adopt the model.  On September 8, 2010, EPA released MOVES2010a, which is a minor update to MOVES2010.  Pennsylvania utilized MOVES2010a in its November 19, 2012 SIP revision.  MOVES2010a was used in order to ensure that the nonattainment area can demonstrate transportation conformity using MOVES2010a once the 3-year conformity grace period expires.  Pennsylvania updated their SIP-approved MVEBs with the use of MOVES2010a.  The budgets were previously developed with the use of the Highway Mobile Source Emission Factor Model (MOBILE6.2).

MOBILE6.2 is a motor vehicle emissions factor model that was utilized for SIPs and transportation conformity.  MOBILE6.2 was made available for use in SIPs and transportation conformity purposes on May 19, 2004 (69 FR 28830).  MOBILE6.2 was merely an update to MOBILE6 that added the ability for the program to estimate direct exhaust and brake and tire wear particulate matter emission factors as well as exhaust emission factors for particulate matter precursors.

MOVES2010 improves upon MOBILE6.2 in many aspects.  MOVES2010 utilizes a plethora of vehicle data that has been made available since the release of MOBILE6.2; this vehicle data includes emissions data for different kinds of vehicles.  The new data has allowed EPA to better understand on-road mobile source emissions and their contribution to emissions inventories as well as how effective different control strategies are.  The MOVES2010 model offers more flexibility because the program has a database design that allows easier organization of input and output files and data.  The database design of the MOVES2010 model allows much easier update of input data upon the release of new data.  MOVES2010 also accounts for temperature and speed variations and allows the model to run at a higher resolution which allows for the input of more activity data.

Under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), any federal action is required to conform to the applicable SIP.  A part of this requirement for conformity is transportation conformity.  Transportation conformity requires that any federally funded transportation plan, program or project conform to the applicable SIP for the transportation-related criteria pollutants (ozone, carbon monoxide, fine particulate matter (PM2.5), coarse particulate matter (PM10), and nitrogen dioxide).  The transportation conformity rules can be found at 40 CFR 93, Subpart A.  One of the requirements found under 40 CFR 93, Subpart A is that any transportation plan, TIP or project not in a conforming TIP must conform to the MVEBs in the applicable SIP.  In order for the MVEBs in a SIP to be used to determine conformity of a transportation plan, TIP or project, the MVEBs must be either approved or deemed adequate.  In this case, the budgets must be approved because this SIP revision is revising already approved budgets.  However, in reviewing such a submitted SIP it remains useful to apply the criteria used to make an adequacy finding.  The requirements for adequacy are set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi).  The criteria for adequacy and how they are met by the Pennsylvania submittal are found below in Table 1.
        Table 1.  Adequacy Criteria for the Lancaster Maintenance Area
                                   Criterion
                                   Submittal

(i) The submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan was endorsed by the Governor (or his or her designee) and was subject to a State public hearing;
   * Letter addressed to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III from Michael L. Krancer, Secretary, Pennsylvania DEP.
   * Public hearing documents were submitted.

(ii) Before the control strategy implementation plan or maintenance plan was submitted to EPA, consultation among federal, State, and local agencies occurred; full implementation plan documentation was provided to EPA; and EPA's stated concerns, if any, were addressed;

   * N/A.  This revision does not accompany a control strategy implementation plan or maintenance plan.

(iii) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is clearly identified and precisely quantified;
   * Appendix C-2 of the submittal provides detailed emission summary tables.

(iv) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with applicable requirements for reasonable further progress, attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given implementation plan submission);
   * Maintenance plan for  Lancaster County was already approved on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36889), no changes to area and nonroad source emissions, point source emissions were updated.
   * Lancaster County continues to attain the 1997 8-Hr Ozone NAAQS as shown by the design value obtained from 2009-2011 data.
   * Update of point source emissions shows less emissions than those predicted in the maintenance plan.

(v) The motor vehicle emissions budget(s) is consistent with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control measures in the submitted control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance plan; and
   * The SIP revision shows no change in any control measures in the previously submitted maintenance plan.

(vi) Revisions to previously submitted control strategy implementation plans or maintenance plans explain and document any changes to previously submitted budgets and control measures; impacts on point and area source emissions; any changes to established safety margins (see § 93.101 for definition); and reasons for the changes (including the basis for any changes related to emission factors or estimates of vehicle miles traveled).
   * Changes in MVEBs are clearly documented and explained in the submittal.  The higher emissions are due to the use of MOVES2010a which is a more accurate emissions model and is based on more recent data on vehicle emissions than MOBILE6.2.  Update of point source emissions and addition of small safety margin are well explained.

B.  STATE SUBMITTAL:

On November 19, 2012, Pennsylvania DEP submitted a SIP revision which included an update to the MVEBs for NOx and VOCs for the years 2009 (interim year) and 2018 (maintenance year).  The updated MVEBs were produced using the MOVES2010a model. The MVEBs were developed with guidance from the following EPA guidance documents: Policy Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes and Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.  The submittal also includes an updated point source emissions inventory.

I.  Methodology for Developing Data for Use in MOVES2010a

Pennsylvania DEP utilized MOVES2010a to provide emissions rates for emissions of NOx and VOCs.  PPSUITE is a program that was utilized for the processing of highway information and to provide input files that are usable by the MOVES2010a model.  PPSUITE was run utilizing CENTRAL; CENTRAL is a program that provides a process for the proper function of PPSUITE and MOVES2010a.  The MVEBs were developed for NOx and VOCs since they are the two biggest contributors to the formation of ozone.

In PPSUITE, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) Roadway Management System (RMS) data among other data was utilized to produce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates.  The VMT produced via PPSUITE was then imported into the county data manager (CDM) in MOVES2010a.  Since VOCs and NOx emissions differ with respect to travel speed, travel speed is utilized as an input in MOVES2010a. To develop an array of travel speeds, PPSUITE was utilized to develop vehicle hours of travel (VHT) by speed bin file which allows for the distribution of speeds across links into MOVES2010a speed bins.  The travel speed calculations were completed with guidance from Technical Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for Emission Inventory Preparation in State Implementation Plans and Transportation Conformity.

Road type distribution was another traffic input for MOVES2010a.  Road type distribution was developed with the use of PPSUITE.  The five different road types utilized by MOVES2010a are off network, rural restricted access, rural unrestricted access, urban restricted access and urban unrestricted access.  In addition, ramps are not included in road type distribution so it is assumed that 8% of the roadway VHT is ramp VHT.  This traffic input assumption is consistent with EPA's technical guidance.

Before RMS data is utilized by PPSUITE to develop various traffic inputs, several adjustments must be made.  The RMS VMT is adjusted to meet the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) VMT totals.  HPMS VMT utilizes snapshots of RMS VMT to satisfy reporting requirements established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).  To make this adjustment, adjustment factors were calculated and utilized.

Adjustments to average annual daily traffic (AADT) were completed because calculations for ozone precursors are based on a summer weekday, since that is when ozone formation tends to be the greatest.  The RMS AADT volumes are adjusted by the use of a seasonal factor that was developed by PennDOT's Bureau of Planning and Research (BPR) to produce July traffic volumes.  The RMS data was also adjusted for differences in hourly traffic volumes. The 24-hour pattern data provided to PPSUITE allowed PPSUITE to provide roadway segment volumes by the hour.  The 24-hour pattern data was obtained from PennDOT's PBR.

Traffic volume forecasts had to be applied to estimate future emissions from vehicles.  The growth rates utilized for these forecasts are the PennDOT PBR growth rate forecasting system, the regional travel model and any applicable Marcellus Shale related activity growth.  Additionally, county specific growth rates were utilized from a 2005 PennDOT report titled Statistical Evaluation of Projected Traffic Growth, Traffic Growth Forecasting System: Final Report, March 14, 2005.

MOVES2010a utilizes 13 vehicle source types.  Since HPMS utilizes different categories for vehicle types, the RMS traffic volumes were disaggregated to the 13 vehicle source types which were then combined into the 6 HPMS vehicle classes.  Vehicle type data input into PPSUITE is used to divide the roadway segment volumes with respect to the MOVES2010a source types.  The source types are split into percentages among the 24-hours of the day.  The vehicle source type percentages are then utilized to adjust vehicle speeds in response to trucks.

Vehicle population is also another important input for MOVES2010a.  Vehicle population is input into MOVES2010a with respect to the 13 vehicle source types utilized by the model. County level vehicle registration data is utilized for light duty vehicles and school buses. Transit bus data is obtained from PennDOT's National Transit Database (NTD); it is utilized to estimate county level transit bus counts.  Heavy duty vehicle population data is estimated by utilizing source type VMT and vehicle source and pattern data are utilized.  Vehicle age is input into the model as well. The vehicle age is input into the model as a percentage of vehicles of the fleet between ages 0 and 31.

Outside of vehicle and roadway data, environmental variables are utilized as inputs since evaporative emissions are dependent on the surrounding temperatures.  The environmental variables used included hourly temperatures and humidity values. The temperatures were retrieved by Weather Bank Inc. Humidity values were produced according to EPA's technical guidance. Minimum and maximum monthly temperatures were converted to hourly temperatures using EPA converters in the MOVES2010a model.

Fuel parameters were also input since different fuels produce different emissions. The MOVES2010a default fuel formulation and supply data was utilized and updated with local volumetric fuel property data. Gasohol market penetration and RVP values were updated at the county level.  Other fuel parameters were obtained through the MOVES2010a default data.

Refueling emissions were not included as an input because Pennsylvania provides the refueling emissions in its area source inventory; hence it is not required for the production of MVEBs.  Additionally, MOVES2010a also includes input parameters for inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs.  The inputs for the I/M program include: program start year, stringency level, first and last model years subject to the program, waiver rates, compliance rates, program type and effectiveness, frequency of inspection, vehicle type coverage and test type. The defaults for an I/M program in MOVES2010a were modified to accurately represent the I/M program for Lancaster County.

II.  Running MOVES2010a

As stated in Section I, the data utilized to run MOVES2010a is a mixture of local and national data.  Local data is utilized for all inputs that have significant impact on the emissions rates that are calculated by MOVES2010a.  The local data utilized as inputs for MOVES2010a is categorized into five categories which include: traffic data, vehicle descriptions, fuel parameters, I/M programs, and environmental variables. The inputs for traffic data include vehicle type VMT, vehicle population, VMT fractions, road type distribution, and ramp fractions.  The inputs for vehicle descriptions include vehicle type mix, vehicle age distribution, average speeds and hourly distributions of different vehicles.  The inputs for fuel parameters include RVP, sulfur level and ethanol volume.  The inputs for I/M programs include start and model years, the frequency of tests, test standards, source types, stringency of tests, the waiver rate, and compliance rates.  The inputs for environmental variables include hourly temperatures and humidity.

MOVES2010a inputs that were prepared by PPSUITE included vehicle type VMT, vehicle population, VMT fractions, average speed distributions, road type distribution and ramp fractions.  These files were input into the MOVES2010a county data importer.  Additional non-PPSUITE inputs included fuel and vehicle ages, as well as temperatures and I/M programs.  The county data importer was run in batch mode.  Running the county data importer converts input files into a MYSQL format which is accepted by MOVES2010a.  Afterwards, a MOVES run specification file (.mrs) was created.  This file includes options and different data locations for the execution of the model.  MOVES2010a can be executed to provide an emissions rate or an emissions inventory.  In this submittal, MOVES2010a was executed to provide an emissions inventory.  The emissions estimates of VOCs and NOx produced for the years 2004, 2009 and 2018 by MOVES2010a are provided in Table 2.  The emissions estimates are provided in tons per day (tpd); also provided in Table 2 is the comparison between the emissions produced by MOBILE6.2 and MOVES2010a.  The revised MVEBs produced with MOVES2010a are found below in Table 3.  After reviewing this submittal, EPA concurs with Pennsylvania that even though the emissions results produced by MOVES2010a are greater than those previously calculated using MOBILE6.2. EPA's review of the SIP revision indicates these higher emissions result from improvements in the MOVES model rather than from unanticipated growth or changes in control measures.  The MOVES results are more accurate estimates of the emissions that actually occurred in 2002 and 2009, rather than an indication that emissions are increasing.  More importantly, Lancaster county attained the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS and was redesignated to a maintenance area on July 6, 2007 (72 FR 36889).  Lancaster County continues to attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS as shown by its 2009-2011 design values.  The two air quality monitors in Lancaster County are providing design values of 76 parts per million (ppm) and 77 ppm, which are below the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS of 0.08 ppm.  Therefore, EPA finds this update to the MVEBs does not interfere with Lancaster County's ability to maintain its attainment of the1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Table 2.  Summary of Motor Vehicle Emissions for the Lancaster Maintenance Area
Model
                                   MOBILE6.2
                                  MOVES2010a
Year
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
                                                                           2018
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
                                                                           2018
VOCs (tpd)
                                                                          19.75
                                                                          14.33
                                                                           7.77
                                                                          16.41
                                                                          14.29
                                                                           8.14
NOx (tpd)
                                                                          32.33
                                                                          22.32
                                                                           8.99
                                                                          42.10
                                                                          33.18
                                                                          18.57

          Table 3.  Revised MVEBs for the Lancaster Maintenance Area
Year
                                                                           2009
                                                                           2018
VOCs (tpd)
                                                                          35.18
                                                                          14.29
NOx (tpd)
                                                                          20.57
                                                                          10.14

III.  Revision of Point Source Emissions

In addition to revising the MVEBs for the Lancaster County Maintenance Area, Pennsylvania DEP submitted revisions to its inventory of point source emissions.  The change accounts for a decrease in point source emissions.  The point source emissions were projected for the 2009 interim year in the 2006 maintenance plan SIP submittal and the actual emissions were less than the projected emissions at the time.  Company-reported point source emissions were utilized to update the 2009 interim year inventory.  The previously estimated and the actual interim year inventories are provided in Table 4. The update to the 2018 maintenance year was produced by linear extrapolation between the point source emissions for 2007 and 2020.  These point source emissions were produced by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, Inc. (MARAMA).  The emissions data for the years 2007 and 2020 were obtained from the MARAMA document titled MARAMA 2007, 2017, and 2020 Baseline and Projected Inventories, Version 3.  The emissions provided by this MARAMA document utilize the most recent growth assumptions, which are more recent than the growth assumptions utilized by Pennsylvania DEP in the Lancaster County Maintenance Plan that was submitted in 2006.  The main reason the point source emissions were updated, is because some growth factors decreased while others increased, but overall there is a decrease in projected emissions from the previous 2018 inventory and the 2018 inventory in this submittal.  The previously submitted 2018 point source emissions inventory currently in the maintenance plan and the updated 2018 point source emissions inventory are provided below in Table 5.  The update to the point source emissions has been reviewed and found to be reasonable, an additional technical support document in this docket addresses the revision of the point source emissions. The document is titled Technical Support Document for Emissions Inventories for the State Implementation Plan Revision: NOx and VOC Motor Vehicle Emission Budget Revision
Based on MOVES2010a.
   Table 4.  2009 Point Source Emissions for the Lancaster Maintenance Area

Estimated
Actual
VOCs (tpd)
                                                                            8.7
                                                                            5.5
NOx (tpd)
                                                                            4.1
                                                                            3.2

   Table 5.  2018 Point Source Emissions for the Lancaster Maintenance Area

Maintenance Plan
Updated
VOCs (tpd)
                                                                             11
                                                                            7.7
NOx (tpd)
                                                                            4.6
                                                                            3.6

IV.  Safety Margins

Since there is a significant difference between the projected emissions for the maintenance year and the attainment year a small portion of that difference was made into a safety margin. A 2 tpd safety margin was added for VOCs and NOx emissions for the 2018 MVEBs and a 2 tpd safety margin was added for NOx for the 2009 MVEBs.  The differences between the 2004 attainment year and the 2009 interim year and 2018 maintenance year for NOx are found below in Table 6.  The differences between the 2004 attainment year and the 2009 interim year and 2018 maintenance year for VOCs are found below in Table 7. Tables 6 and 7 show that there are decreases which are significant in some categories between the attainment, interim and maintenance years.  Because the 2009 and 2018 emissions are less than the 2004 attainment year emissions, the excess emissions can be allocated to the MVEBs while the area can continue to attain the 1997 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS.

Table 6.  NOx Emissions and Differences for Years 2004, 2009 and 2018 for the Lancaster Maintenance Area
Category
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
 2004-2009
                                                                           2018
    2004-2018
Point (tpd)
                                                                           3.89
                                                                            3.2
                                                                           0.79
                                                                            3.6
                                                                           0.29
Area (tpd)
                                                                            2.6
                                                                            2.8
                                                                           -0.2
                                                                            2.9
                                                                           -0.3
Nonroad (tpd)
                                                                           13.2
                                                                           10.8
                                                                            2.4
                                                                            6.8
                                                                            6.4
Mobile (tpd)
                                                                           42.1
                                                                          33.18
                                                                           8.92
                                                                          18.57
                                                                          23.53
Total (tpd)
                                                                          61.79
                                                                          49.98
                                                                          11.91
                                                                          31.87
                                                                          29.92

   Table 7.  VOCs Emissions and Differences for Years 2004, 2009 & 2018
Category
                                                                           2004
                                                                           2009
2004-2009
                                                                           2018
    2004-2018
Point (tpd)
                                                                            8.1
                                                                            5.5
                                                                            2.6
                                                                           7.74
                                                                           0.36
Area (tpd)
                                                                           24.4
                                                                           24.2
                                                                            0.2
                                                                           27.2
                                                                           -2.8
Nonroad (tpd)
                                                                           17.3
                                                                             15
                                                                            2.3
                                                                           11.9
                                                                            5.4
Mobile (tpd)
                                                                          16.41
                                                                          14.29
                                                                           2.12
                                                                           8.14
                                                                           8.27
Total (tpd)
                                                                          66.21
                                                                          58.99
                                                                           7.22
                                                                          54.98
                                                                          11.23

C.  EPA EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION:

EPA thoroughly evaluated the submittal made by Pennsylvania through Pennsylvania DEP.  Our detailed review has led us to conclude that the development methodology of the MVEBs is consistent with applicable guidance documents intended to guide the development of on-road inventories and MVEBs.  We also reviewed the MVEBs using the adequacy criteria set forth in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(i)-(vi), and as documented above we found that the budgets meet all of the adequacy criteria.  Based on the results of our in depth review of the SIP revision, the area's continued attainment of the 1997 8-Hour Ozone  NAAQS and the results of our review of the MVEBs using the adequacy criteria in the transportation conformity rule, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision.


From: Kristin Parrish To: Mary Tom Kissell C439 03 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Date: August 8, 2003 Project: Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) NESHAP Re: Meeting Minutes for the August 6, 2003 Conference Call Between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and Industry Stakeholders to Discuss Inclusion of Lumber Kilns in the PCWP Source Category I. Purpose The EPA invited industry stakeholders to discuss the issues surrounding the inclusion of all lumber kilns in the Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP) NESHAP. The conference call was held on August 6, 2003. The list of participants is included as Attachment 1.

II. Discussion The EPA representatives began the meeting by summarizing the rationale for including all lumber kilns, regardless of location, in the proposed PCWP NESHAP. The rationale was discussed fully in the PCWP proposal preamble. Since EPA received comments opposed to including all lumber kilns in the PCWP source category during the public comment period, they wanted stakeholders to clarify their positions.

The stakeholders in the wood treating industry stated that they believe their lumber kiln operations differ from PCWP operations because they do not add chemicals to the wood that is being dried. They are particularly concerned about being regulated by a NESHAP for a source 2 category that does not apply to their industry, noting that most companies with lumber kilns not located at a PCWP plant site would not know to look to the PCWP NESHAP for lumber kiln regulations. They also noted that wood treating facilities were declared an area source in June 2002 and will be regulated as a separate source category in the future. The industry would prefer to track and implement as few regulations as possible.

The representatives of the PCWP industry stated that they support inclusion of all lumber kilns in the PCWP source category for the reasons stated in the preamble to the proposed PCWP NESHAP. Specifically, the PCWP industry representatives want to eliminate uncertainty surrounding the regulation of lumber kilns and extend the MACT floor determination of no emissions reduction to all lumber kilns. They pointed out that a lumber kiln may cause a facility to be a major source of HAP either on its own or in conjunction with a boiler. Including all lumber kilns in the PCWP NESHAP would eliminate the need for the case by case MACT determinations required by section 112( g) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). The representative from Louisiana Pacific noted that the members of his company had a similar debate and concluded that inclusion of all lumber kilns in the PCWP source category would result in less regulatory burden for everyone. The permit writing process would be streamlined because the control requirements for lumber kilns would already be set.

The Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association ( SLMA) representative stated that she represents stand alone sawmills, some of which have wood treatment facilities. She noted that a MACT floor determination of no emissions reduction for lumber kilns is certainly a benefit,

but SLMA has concerns about the future. If changes are made to the PCWP NESHAP after it is promulgated, she pointed out that those changes could negatively affect the lumber kilns at facilities that do not otherwise fit into the PCWP source category.

The EPA representatives explained that EPA has an obligation to conduct a residual risk analysis eight years after promulgation of the PCWP NESHAP. The PCWP industry representatives noted that it is unlikely that the residual risk analysis would change the controls for lumber kilns because the main HAP in the kiln emissions are methanol and formaldehyde,

which the PCWP industry representatives believe are not high risk pollutants. The PCWP industry representatives added that a compliance option for low risk facilities was mentioned in the preamble to the proposed PCWP NESHAP and the requirements for choosing that compliance option ( if adopted) would be more stringent than the residual risk analysis. They 3 speculated that if a large PCWP facility can meet the risk requirements proposed in the PCWP NESHAP, then smaller facilities with lumber kilns should have no problem complying with future residual risk guidelines.

The EPA representatives then asked the wood treating industry representatives for further clarification on the listing of wood treating facilities as an area source. The wood treating industry representatives stated that wood treating was added to the list of area source categories in 2002. The PCWP industry representatives then stated that they thought the decision to list wood treating was based on the wood treating process and chromated copper arsenate ( CCA)

preservatives. They thought it unlikely that the area source determination would extend to lumber kilns at wood treating facilities. The wood treating industry representatives responded that the listing focused on the entire treating process and was not limited to CCA preservatives.

The wood treating industry representatives stated that a MACT floor determination of no emissions reduction for all lumber kilns would be beneficial, but noted again that the wood treating industry does not want to have to track the PCWP NESHAP. The EPA representatives then asked if they would like for lumber kilns at wood treating facilities to be covered by the future wood treating standards. The wood treating industry representatives responded that separating the lumber kilns would be their preferred solution. They suggested that EPA could compose definitions for both the PCWP NESHAP and the future wood treating rule to clarify which kilns would be covered by each rule. The wood treating industry representatives suggested that lumber kilns used to dry material that will be treated could be removed from the PCWP NESHAP and noted that many white poles are dried in lumber kilns. They also noted that there are other lumber kilns that would need to be removed from the PCWP NESHAP as well, such as those used at sawmills.

The PCWP industry representatives stated that making a decision on the MACT floor determination for all lumber kilns now provides regulatory certainty to all parties involved. They noted that it may be more elegant to cover lumber kilns not located at PCWP facilities under a separate lumber kiln standard, but developing regulatory standards is not a trivial matter. They stated that not regulating all lumber kilns in the PCWP NESHAP will place a significant regulatory burden on all parties that have to work through section 112( j) of the CAA. The PCWP industry representatives stated that all lumber kilns are eventually going to be regulated by some standard. Furthermore, if a facility that is a major source of HAP has a boiler, that facility is 4 already subject to two MACT standards. They emphasized that a future lumber kiln regulation may not conclude that the MACT floor is no emissions reduction and the States may not be consistent in their case by case determinations.

The wood treating industry representatives stated that they were aware of the boiler MACT. They noted that lumber kilns are not listed as a separate source category and were not being considered for any regulation prior to the proposed PCWP NESHAP in January 2003. The EPA representatives noted that lumber kilns removed from the PCWP source category may become a separate source category under section 112( c)( 1) of the CAA since some of them are major sources. An RTI representative noted that about 50 facilities that are not PCWP facilities and that have lumber kilns may be major sources because they have multiple kilns. The EPA representatives noted that EPA would promulgate a rule within two years of the source category listing for lumber kilns removed from the PCWP source category and included in a new source category. They also noted that lumber kilns removed from the PCWP NESHAP are subject to section 112( g) of the CAA.

The wood treating industry representatives then asked about the types of wood dried in the lumber kilns used in the PCWP industry. The wood treating industry representatives noted that wood is never redried in their industry; the lumber kilns are used to remove just enough water from green wood so that the treating chemicals can enter the wood effectively. The PCWP industry representatives responded that they dry green wood as well and that they do not add anything to the wood. They again stated that drying green wood in lumber kilns can produce enough HAP to classify the facility as a major source.

The SLMA representative asked if controls added to one lumber kiln would be required for all lumber kilns in the source category and if the process used for the residual risk analysis would be different from the process used to determine the MACT floor. The PCWP industry representatives noted that once EPA makes a MACT floor determination of no emissions reduction for all lumber kilns, there is no need for facilities with lumber kilns to track the PCWP NESHAP until the residual risk analysis begins. The PCWP industry representatives speculated that the EPA would consider facilities and process units in a different context for the residual risk analysis than for MACT floor determinations. The wood treating industry representatives then asked if the MACT floor determination of no emissions reduction would apply unless the PCWP residual risk analysis provided evidence that lumber kilns needed additional control. They also 5 asked for more details on how the residual risk analysis might be conducted ( e. g., whether or not lumber kiln risk would be evaluated based on the entire source category or individual facilities, or how the lumber kilns are used). Specifically, they were interested in knowing if the residual risk analysis might determine that controls would be necessary for some lumber kilns and not others.

The EPA representatives responded that it would be possible to look at types of facilities rather than the whole category and noted that they are just now making decisions about how residual risk analyses will be conducted. Currently, EPA is considering a low risk ( 10 6) trigger for cancer risks. Health risks higher than 10 4 would need to be lowered. The EPA representatives also stated that the residual risk standards will be promulgated eight years after the PCWP NESHAP promulgation, so it will probably be necessary to start writing the residual risk standards about four years after the PCWP NESHAP is promulgated. The EPA representatives noted that the purpose of the residual risk analysis is to ensure that the risks are low enough to be safe for human health.

The wood treating industry representatives noted that if lumber kilns not located at a PCWP facility are included in the PCWP source category, the data that EPA has collected on PCWP lumber kilns will not necessarily apply to all lumber kilns. They asked how EPA would handle that situation in terms of the residual risk analysis procedure and if EPA would need to collect additional data. The EPA representatives responded that they want to have the best information possible in order to accurately characterize emissions. The EPA representatives stated that they may choose to collect more data, possibly through a survey, if more information is needed.

The wood treating industry representatives asked how EPA would handle the area source rulemaking for wood treating facilities if lumber kilns are covered under the PCWP NESHAP. The EPA representatives stated that lumber kilns and boilers would both be exempt from the wood treating rule because they would be covered by other NESHAP.

The PCWP industry representatives asked if EPA could develop a notification form to send to facilities with lumber kilns not located at PCWP facilities to inform them that their kilns are covered by the PCWP NESHAP. They noted that this form could also serve as the initial notification form required by the PCWP NESHAP, and it would help to minimize the tracking burden for facilities with lumber kilns. The EPA representatives responded that the suggestion sounded feasible. 6 The EPA representatives then asked if any of the stakeholders' opinions had changed during the meeting. The wood treating industry representatives stated that they may be willing to reconsider their initial position and asked about the recordkeeping burden for non PCWP facilities if lumber kilns are included in the PCWP NESHAP. The EPA representatives stated that non

PCWP facilities would submit only one report  an initial notification form. The wood treating industry representatives stated that many facilities in the wood treating industry do not have any idea that EPA plans to regulate their lumber kilns and noted that many facilities ( generally nonmajor sources) do not belong to trade organizations or subscribe to industry journals. The EPA representatives stated that the initial notification is required only from major sources. The SLMA representative agreed to talk to her members and added that she thought the comfort level with the issues would be different now. The wood treating industry representatives and the SLMA representative agreed to contact EPA soon with feedback.

The teleconference was then adjourned. Attachment 1 List of Participants U. S. EPA K. C. Hustvedt, ESD Mary Tom Kissell, OAQPS Mike Thrift, OGC Industry Stakeholders Debbie Burns, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association David Harvey, Louisiana Pacific Corporation Jim Healey, Koppers Industries, Inc.

Tim Hunt, American Forest and Paper Association Leslie Hyde, Koppers Industries, Inc.

Research Triangle Institute Katie Hanks Kristin Parrish


   UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        ANN ARBOR, MI 48105

March 13, 2007

OFFICE OF

                       	               									             AIR AND
RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Incorporation by Reference of Rulemaking Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0045.

FROM:	Mike Samulski

		  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Assessment and Standards Division

TO:		Public Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121

The current emission standards for new compression-ignition marine
engines with per cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters per
cylinder were adopted in 2003 (see 68 FR 9746, February 28, 2003).  This
advance notice of proposed rulemaking relies in part on information that
was obtained for that rule, which can be found in Public Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0045.  Consequently, the contents of
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0045 are incorporated by reference into this Docket
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0121.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 18, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 15446]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05566]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP10-22-000, CP16-18-000, and CP20-77-000]

Magnum Gas Storage, LLC; Notice of Motion To Partially Vacate
Certificate Authorization or in the Alternative, Motion To Amend
Certificate Authorization

    Take notice that on March 4, 2020, Magnum Gas Storage, LLC
(Magnum), 3165 E Millrock Dr., #330, Holladay, Utah 84121, filed in
Docket No. CP20-77-000, a Motion requesting to partially vacate the
certificate authorization for certain facilities approved in the
captioned dockets, or in the alternative to amend the certificate
authorization. Magnum proposes to delete two natural gas storage
caverns, one brine pond and related facilities from the current
authorization as they are no longer needed for the authorized storage
service. Magnum states that no facilities authorized in the above
captioned proceedings have been constructed, or placed into service,
all as more fully set forth in the application, which is on file with
the Commission and open to public inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to John
Alvarado, CFO/COO, Magnum Development LLC, 3165 E Millrock Dr., #330,
Holladay, Utah 84121, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or J. Gordon Pennington, Attorney at Law,
Georgetown Place, 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20007,
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 3 copies of filings made with the Commission and must provide a
copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    As of the February 27, 2018 date of the Commission's order in
Docket No. CP16-4-001, the Commission will apply its revised practice
concerning out-of-time motions to intervene in any new Natural Gas Act
section 3 or section 7 proceeding.\1\ Persons desiring to become a
party to a certificate proceeding are to intervene in a timely manner.
If seeking to intervene out-of-time, the movant is required to show
good cause why the time limitation should be waived, and should provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d)(1) of
the Commission's Rules and Regulations.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C., 162 FERC 61,167 at
50 (2018).
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 3 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 27, 2020.

    Dated: March 12, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05566 Filed 3-17-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 39032]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES>

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on September 7, 2010, from
8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, The Ballrooms,
620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD. The hotel phone number is 301-977-
8900.
    Contact Person: Minh Doan, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., WO31-2417,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-
800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512530. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On September 7, 2010, the committee will discuss new drug
application (NDA) 20-0327, for ceftaroline fosamil for injection,
submitted by Cerexa, Inc., and the requested indications of: (1)
Treatment of adults with community acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP);
and (2) complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). The
morning session will be devoted to discussing the CABP indication, and
the afternoon session to discussing the cSSSI indication.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
August 23, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 11 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 4 p.m.
Those desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before August 13, 2010. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by August 16, 2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Minh Doan at least 7
days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C.app. 2).

    Dated: July 1, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-16591 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register: October 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 191)]
[Notices]
[Page 57169-57172]
[DOCID:fr01oc08-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58623; File No. SR-BATS-2008-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Consolidating Into a Single Rule Certain Requirements for Products
Traded on the Exchange Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges

September 23, 2008.
    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 September 17, 2008, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. BATS has designated the proposed
rule change as constituting a rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend BATS Rule 14.1, entitled
``Unlisted Trading Privileges'' to consolidate into a single rule
certain requirements for trading products on the Exchange pursuant to
unlisted trading privileges (``UTP'') that have been established in
various new product proposals previously approved by the Commission.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis, for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's
rules to consolidate into a single rule certain requirements for
trading products on the Exchange pursuant to UTP that have been
established in various new product proposals previously approved by the
Commission. The Exchange proposes to amend BATS Rule 14.1 to set forth
rules regarding the extension of UTP to a security that is listed on
another national securities exchange. Any such security will be subject
to all Exchange trading rules applicable to equity securities, unless
otherwise noted. The Exchange will file with the Commission a Form 19b-
4(e) with respect to any such security that is a ``new derivative
securities product'' as defined in Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act.\5\ In
addition, any new derivative securities product traded on the Exchange
pursuant to the proposed BATS Rule 14.1 will be subject to the
following criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(2) provides that the Exchange will
distribute an information circular prior to the commencement of trading
in such new derivative securities products, which generally will
include the same information as the information circular provided by
the listing exchange, including: (1) The special risks of trading the
new derivative securities product; (2) the Exchange's rules that will
apply to the new derivative securities product, including the
suitability rule;\6\ (3) information about the dissemination of the
value of the underlying assets or indexes; and (4) the risk of trading
during the Exchange's pre-opening session due to the lack of
calculation or dissemination of the intraday indicative value or a
similar value.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See BATS Rule 3.7.
    \7\ BATS's pre-opening session is from 8 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.
Eastern Time. BATS does not currently have a post market trading
session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(3)(A) reminds Members \8\ that they are
subject to the prospectus delivery requirements under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (``Securities Act''), unless the new derivative
securities product is the subject of an order by the Commission
exempting the product from certain prospectus delivery requirements
under Section 24(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``1940
Act'') \9\ and the product is not otherwise subject to prospectus
delivery requirements under the Securities Act. The Exchange will
inform its Members of the application of the provisions of this
subparagraph to a particular new securities derivative product governed
by the 1940 Act by means of an information circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-24(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(4) addresses trading halts in new
derivative securities products traded on the Exchange pursuant to UTP.
Proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(4)(A) provides that the Exchange, upon
notification by the listing market of a halt due to a temporary
interruption in the calculation or wide dissemination of the intraday
indicative value (or similar value) or the value of the underlying
index or instrument, will immediately halt trading in that product on
the Exchange. If the intraday indicative value (or a similar value) or
the value of the underlying index or instrument continues not to be
calculated or widely available at the commencement of trading on the
Exchange on the next business day, the Exchange shall not commence
trading of the product on that day. If an interruption in the
calculation or wide dissemination of the intraday indicative value (or
a similar value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument of
a series continues, the Exchange may resume trading in the product only
if calculation and wide dissemination of the intraday interactive value
(or a similar value) or the value of the underlying index or instrument
resumes or trading in such series resumes in the listing market.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange also has authority to suspend or halt trading
under BATS Rule 11.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(4)(B) provides that, for a
new derivative securities product where a net asset value (and, in the
case of managed fund shares or actively managed exchange-traded funds,
a ``disclosed portfolio'') is disseminated, the Exchange will
immediately halt trading in such security upon notification by the
listing market that the net asset value, and, if applicable, such
disclosed portfolio, is not being disseminated to all market
participants at the same time. The Exchange may resume trading in the
new derivative securities product only when trading in such security
resumes on the listing market.
    Proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(5) provides for restrictions for any
Member registered as a Market Maker (``Restricted Market Maker'') in a
new derivative securities product that derives its value from one or
more currencies, commodities, or derivatives based on one or more
currencies or commodities, or is based on a basket or index comprised
of currencies or commodities (collectively, ``Reference Assets'').
Specifically, proposed BATS

Rule 14.1(c)(5)(A) provides that a Restricted Market Maker in a new
derivative securities product is prohibited from acting or registering
as a market maker in any Reference Asset of that new derivative
securities product or any derivative instrument based on a Reference
Asset of that new derivative securities product (collectively, with
Reference Assets, ``Related Instruments''). Proposed BATS Rule
14.1(c)(5)(B) provides that a Restricted Market Maker shall, in a
manner prescribed by the Exchange, file with the Exchange and keep
current a list identifying any accounts (``Related Instrument Trading
Accounts'') for which Related Instruments are traded: (1) In which the
Restricted Market Maker holds an interest; (2) over which it has
investment discretion; or (3) in which it shares in the profits and/or
losses. In addition, a Restricted Market Maker may not have an interest
in, exercise investment discretion over, or share in the profits and/or
losses of a Related Instrument Trading Account which has not been
reported to the Exchange as required by this rule. Proposed BATS Rule
14.1(c)(5)(C) provides that, in addition to the existing obligations
under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records, a
Restricted Market Maker shall, upon request by the Exchange, make
available to the Exchange any books, records, or other information
pertaining to any Related Instrument Trading Account or to the account
of any registered or non-registered employee affiliated with the
Restricted Market Maker for which Related Instruments are traded.
Finally, proposed BATS Rule 14.1(c)(5)(D) provides that a Restricted
Market Maker shall not use any material nonpublic information in
connection with trading a Related Instrument.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As of the date of this filing, the Exchange does not have a
market maker classification. However, the Exchange intends to amend
its rules to adopt a market maker classification. Accordingly, the
Exchange has incorporated the market maker prohibition set forth in
proposed Rule 14.1(c)(5) in anticipation of that rule filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, BATS represents that the Exchange's surveillance procedures
for new derivative securities products traded on the Exchange pursuant
to UTP will be similar to the procedures used for equity securities
traded on the Exchange and will incorporate and rely upon existing
Exchange surveillance systems. The Exchange will closely monitor
activity in new derivative securities products traded on the Exchange
pursuant to UTP to deter any improper trading activity. The proposed
rule change also provides that the Exchange will enter into a
comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement (``CSSA'') with a market
trading components of the index or portfolio on which the new
derivative securities product is based to the same extent as the
listing exchange's rule require the listing market to enter into a CSSA
with such market.
2. Statutory Basis
    Approval of the rule changes proposed in this submission is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities
exchange, and, specifically, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of
the Act.\12\ In particular, for the reasons described above, the
proposed changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\
because they would promote just and equitable principles of trade,
remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors
and the public interest by providing for the trading of securities,
including new derivative securities products, on BATS pursuant to UTP,
subject to consistent and reasonable standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes impose
any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    (i) Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    (ii) Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    (iii) Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). The Commission notes that BATS has
satisfied the five-day pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BATS has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay.
The Commission believes that such waiver is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
should benefit investors by creating, without undue delay, additional
competition in the trading of new derivative securities products,
subject to consistent and reasonable standards. Proposed BATS Rule 14.1
is closely modeled after similar rules of other national securities
exchanges \16\ and does not raise any novel or significant regulatory
issues. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change
as operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NSX Rule 15.9 and Securities Exchange Act Release No.
57448 (March 6, 2008), 73 FR 13597 (March 13, 2008) (SR-NSX-2008-
05); Phlx Rule 803(o) and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57806
(May 9, 2008), 73 FR 28541 (May 16, 2008) (SR-Phlx-2008-34); ISE
Rule 2101 and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57387 (February
27, 2008), 73 FR 11965 (March 5, 2008) (SR-ISE-2007-99).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2008-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2008-004. 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 on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing will also 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-BATS-2008-004 and should be submitted on or before
October 22, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary. 9
 [FR Doc. E8-22961 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 207 (Wednesday, October 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 74490]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2016-107]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; B/E
Aerospace, Inc.--FSI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR). The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of the FAA's regulatory
activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or
omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal
status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-
9004 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments digitally.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynette Mitterer, ANM-113, Federal
Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone<PHONE_NUMBER>. This notice is
published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2016.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2016-9004.
    Petitioner: B/E Aerospace, Inc.--FSI.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.813(e).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking relief to
install up to 24 doors in any zone for mini-suites of a Boeing 777.

[FR Doc. 2016-25825 Filed 10-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P