[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52430-52431]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20616]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 510 and 558

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0002]

Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Quali-
Tech Products, Inc.; Bambermycins; Pyrantel; Tylosin; Virginiamycin

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the animal
drug regulations to reflect the withdrawal of approval of four new
animal drug applications (NADAs), held by Quali-Tech Products, Inc., at
the sponsor's request because the products are no longer manufactured
or marketed.

DATES: The rule is effective September 3, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Alterman, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Quali-Tech Products, Inc., has requested
that FDA withdraw approval of the following four NADAs because the
products, used to manufacture Type C medicated feeds, are no longer
manufactured or marketed: NADA 097-980 for Quali-Tech TYLAN-10 (tylosin
phosphate) Premix, NADA 118-815 for Q.T. BAN-TECH (pyrantel tartrate),
NADA 132-705 for FLAVOMYCIN (bambermycins), and NADA 133-335 for STAFAC
(virginiamycin) Swine Pak 10.
    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice
that approval of NADAs 097-980, 118-815, 132-705, and 133-335, and all
supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn. As provided in the
regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are
amended to reflect these voluntary withdrawals of approval.
    Following these withdrawals of approval, Quali-Tech Products, Inc.,
will no longer be the sponsor of an approved application. Accordingly,
21 CFR 510.600(c) is being amended to remove the entries for this firm.
    This rule does not meet the definition of ``rule'' in 5 U.S.C.
804(3)(A) because it is a rule of ``particular applicability.''
Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements
in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

List of Subjects

21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

21 CFR Parts 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and
redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR parts 510 and
558 are amended as follows:

PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS

0
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

Sec.  510.600  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  510.600, in the table in paragraph (c)(1), remove the entry
for ``Quali-Tech Products, Inc.''; and in the table in paragraph
(c)(2), remove the entry for ``016968''.

PART 558--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS

0
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371.

0
4. In Sec.  558.95, revise paragraphs (a), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3),
(d)(4)(i), and (d)(4)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  558.95  Bambermycins.

    (a) Approvals. See sponsors in Sec.  510.600(c) of this chapter for
use of Type A medicated articles as in paragraph (d) of this section:
    (1) No. 016592: 2, 4, and 10 grams per pound for use as in
paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4) of this section.
    (2) Nos. 012286 and 017790: 2 grams for use as in paragraph (d)(2)
of this section and 0.4 and 2 grams per pound for use as in paragraph
(d)(3).
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Chickens. Use in medicated feed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bambermycins in grams/ton      Indications for use        Limitations                    Sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 1 to 2......................  Broiler chickens: For  Feed continuously as   016592.
                                   increased rate of      the sole ration.
                                   weight gain and
                                   improved feed
                                   efficiency.
(ii) [Reserved].................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Turkeys. Use in medicated feed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bambermycins in grams/ton      Indications for use        Limitations                    Sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 1 to 2......................  Growing turkeys: For   Feed continuously as   012286, 016592, 017790.
                                   improved feed          the sole ration.
                                   efficiency.
(ii) 2..........................  Growing turkeys: For   Feed continuously as   012286, 016592, 017790.
                                   increased rate of      the sole ration.
                                   weight gain and
                                   improved feed
                                   efficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Swine. Use in medicated feed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bambermycins in grams/ton      Indications for use        Limitations                    Sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 2...........................  Growing-finishing      Feed continuously as   012286, 016592, 017790.
                                   swine: For increased   the sole ration.
                                   rate of weight gain
                                   and improved feed
                                   efficiency.
(ii) 2 to 4.....................  Growing-finishing      Feed continuously as   012286, 016592, 017790.
                                   swine: For increased   the sole ration.
                                   rate of weight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Cattle. Use in medicated feed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bambermycins in grams/ton      Indications for use        Limitations                    Sponsor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 1 to 4......................  Cattle fed in          Feed continuously at   016592.
                                   confinement for        a rate of 10 to 20
                                   slaughter: For         milligrams per head
                                   increased rate of      per day.
                                   weight gain and
                                   improved feed
                                   efficiency.
(ii) 2 to 40....................  Pasture cattle         Feed continuously at   016592.
                                   (slaughter, stocker,   a rate of 10 to 40
                                   and feeder cattle,     milligrams per head
                                   and dairy and beef     per day in at least
                                   replacement            1 pound and not more
                                   heifers): For          than 10 pounds of
                                   increased rate of      feed. Daily
                                   weight gain.           bambermycins intakes
                                                          in excess of 20 mg/
                                                          head/day have not
                                                          been shown to be
                                                          more effective than
                                                          20 mg/head/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Sec.  558.485  [Amended]

0
5. In paragraph (b)(3) of Sec.  558.485, remove ``Nos. 016968, and
017790'' and in its place add ``No. 017790''.

Sec.  558.625  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  558.625, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(14).

Sec.  558.635  [Amended]

0
7. In paragraph (a)(2) of Sec.  558.635, remove ``046573, 016968, and
017790'' and in its place add ``046573 and 017790''.

    Dated: August 20, 2013.
Bernadette Dunham,
Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
[FR Doc. 2013-20616 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27963-27964]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD13-6-000]

 Reliability Technical Conference; Notice of Technical Conference

    Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will hold
a Technical Conference on Tuesday, July 9, 2013 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. This Commissioner-led conference will be held in the Commission
Meeting Room at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The conference will be open for the
public to attend, and advance registration is not required.
    The purpose of the conference is to discuss policy issues related
to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System. A more formal agenda will
be issued at a later date.
    Information on this event will be posted on the Calendar of Events
on the Commission's Web site, www.ferc.gov, prior to the event. The
conference will also be Webcast. Anyone with Internet access who
desires to listen to this event can do so by navigating to
www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the
Calendar. The event will contain a link to the webcast. The Capitol
Connection provides technical support for webcasts and offers the
option of listening to the meeting via phone-bridge for a fee. If you
have any questions, visit

www.CapitolConnection.org or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Commission conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations, please
send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY), or send a FAX to<PHONE_NUMBER> with
the required accommodations.
    For more information about this conference, please contact: Sarah
McKinley, Office of External Affairs, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: May 7, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11275 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3718-3721]
[DOCID:fr22ja08-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF07-16-000]

UGI LNG, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Temple LNG Plant Expansion Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

January 15, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed Temple LNG Plant
Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities by
UGI LNG, Inc. (UGI LNG) in Ontelaunee Township, Berks County,
Pennsylvania. The EA will be used by

the Commission in its decisionmaking process to determine whether the
project is in the public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help determine which issues
need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period for
this Notice will close on February 18, 2008. Details on how to submit
comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this
notice. Further notice will be issued in the near future regarding any
local public comment meetings to be held by the Commission staff.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and
local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents
of this proposed project and to encourage them to comment on their
areas of concern.
    A brochure prepared by the FERC entitled ``A Guide to LNG--What All
Citizens Should Know'' is available for viewing on the FERC Internet
Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This brochure addresses a number of

typically asked questions, including what is LNG and how is it
transported.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    UGI LNG proposes to expand its existing Temple LNG Plant in
Ontelaunee Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania (see map in Appendix
1\1\). The expansion would consist of adding one LNG storage tank with
a net working capacity of 50,000 cubic meters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the
Commission's Web site at the eLibrary link or from the Commission's
Public Reference Room or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions
on connecting to eLibrary refer to the public participation section
of this notice. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the ``Additional Information'' section at the end of this notice.
Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this
notice in the mail. Requests for detailed maps of the proposed
facilities should be made directly to UGI LNG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, UGI LNG seeks authority to construct and operate the
following facilities:
     One full-containment LNG storage tank with a net working
capacity of 50,000 cubic meters (314,500 barrels);
     Three vapor return blowers;
     Two boil-off gas compressors;
     Six LNG send out pumps;
     Six submerged combustion vaporizers;
     A shell-and-tube gas-to-gas exchanger;
     Send-out pipeline connecting the new LNG tank to the
existing Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (TETCO) pipeline; and
     A control building.

Land Requirements

    It is estimated that construction of the project would disturb
about 15 acres of land. This land is within the existing plant site
owned by UGI LNG and on adjacent existing right-of-way controlled by
TETCO.

The EA Process

    We \2\ are preparing this EA to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires the Commission to take
into account the environmental impact that could result if it
authorizes UGI LNG's proposal. By this notice, we are also asking
federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special
expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate
with us in the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should
follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.
    The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to seek public and agency
input early in the project planning phase and encourage involvement by
interested stakeholders in a manner that allows for the early
identification and resolution of environmental issues. We will work
with all interested stakeholders to identify and attempt to address
issues before UGI LNG files its application with the FERC. A diagram
depicting the environmental review process for the proposed project is
attached to this notice as Appendix 2.
    NEPA also requires the FERC to discover and address concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in the EA. All comments received will be considered
during the preparation of the EA. As part of the Pre-filing Process
review, FERC staff representatives participated in a public open house
sponsored by UGI LNG in the project area on December 18, 2007, to
explain the environmental review process to interested stakeholders and
take comments about the project.
    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils.
     Wetlands and waterbodies.
     Land use.
     Cultural resources.
     Vegetation and wildlife (including sensitive species).
     Air and noise quality.
     Reliability, safety and security.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA which will
be published and mailed to Federal, State, and local agencies,
interested individuals who return the Information Request Form in
Appendix 3, and the Commission's official service list for this
proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review when the EA is
published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our
recommendations to the Commission.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under its Pre-filing Process. The
purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. Once a formal application is filed
with the FERC, a new docket number will be established.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, reasonable alternatives to the proposal including alternative
locations and routes, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments
are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 3.
     Reference Docket No. PF07-16-000.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before February 18, 2008.

    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18
Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on
the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the

``eFiling'' link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your
submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save
it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will
need to create an account by clicking on ``Login to File'' and then
``New User Account.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing
you are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.''
    If you are interested in receiving a copy of the EA, please return
the Information Request (Appendix 3). If you do not return the
Information Request, you will be taken off the mailing list.
    Once UGI LNG formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an official party to the proceeding known as an
``intervenor.'' Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field. Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22JA08.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22JA08.007

[FR Doc. E8-965 Filed 1-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 8324]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3349]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Applications for the Environment: Real-Time Information Synthesis
(AERIS) User Needs Workshop; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent
Transportation System Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) will host a free
public workshop to discuss the Applications for the Environment: Real-
Time Information Synthesis (AERIS) Program and solicit user needs for
its Transformative Concepts on March 14, 2012, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and
March 15, 2012, 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the Hall of States, 444 North
Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20001,<PHONE_NUMBER>. On March 14th,
the first three hours of the workshop will also be webcast at no charge
for those participants who are not able to participate in person. An
electronic feedback form will be made available to allow participants
to provide additional input.
    Persons planning to attend any part of the workshop or participate
in the three-hour Webinar should register online at http://www.itsa.org/AERIS_User_Needs_Workshop by February 29, 2012. Please
specify if you plan to attend in person or participate via Webinar. For
additional questions, please contact Adam Hopps at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
202-680-0091.

About the AERIS Program

    At the core of Federal ITS research is connected vehicle research--
a multimodal initiative that aims to enable safe, interoperable
networked wireless communications among vehicles, the infrastructure,
and passengers' personal communications devices. This research
leverages the potentially transformative capabilities of wireless
technology to make surface transportation safer, smarter, and greener.
The objective of the AERIS research program is to generate and acquire
environmentally-relevant real-time transportation data, and use these
data to create actionable information that supports and facilitates
``green'' transportation choices by transportation system users and
operators. Employing a multi-modal approach, the AERIS Program will
work in partnership with the vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-
infrastructure (V2I) communications research efforts to better define
how connected vehicle data and applications might contribute to
mitigating some of the negative environmental impacts of surface
transportation.

About the AERIS User Needs Workshop

    The purpose of this workshop is to obtain stakeholder input on the
Concepts of Operations (ConOps) that will be developed for the set of
AERIS Transformative Concepts. Transformative Concepts are integrated
operational concepts that use V2V, V2I, and other data and
communications in innovative ways to operate surface transportation
networks to reduce transportation-related emissions and fuel
consumption. Transformative Concepts are intended to change the way
surface transportation systems operate, with an emphasis on combining
connected vehicle applications to provide significant environmental
benefits. The AERIS Transformative Concepts include: (1) Eco-signal
operations, (2) eco-lanes, (3) low-emissions zone, (4) eco-traveler
information, (5) support for alternative fuel vehicle operations, and
(6) eco-integrated corridor management. During this workshop, the AERIS
team will facilitate interactive breakout sessions to obtain
stakeholder input on desired capabilities, data needs, and modeling
needs. This valuable feedback will be utilized by the USDOT to further
define the Transformative Concepts and provide input into the ConOps.
Input from this workshop will enable the USDOT in conducting future
research and modeling to determine potential environmental benefits in
a connected vehicle environment. For more information on the AERIS
Program and the Transformative Concepts, visit: http://www.its.dot.gov/aeris/index.htm.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 8th day of February 2012.
Shelley Row,
Director, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-3349 Filed 2-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-HY-P


[Federal Register: March 31, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 61)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16032-16037]
[DOCID:fr31mr10-21]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1032; FRL-9131-4]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of
Colorado; Interstate Transport of Pollution Revisions for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone NAAQS: ``Significant Contribution to Nonattainment''
Requirement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing partial
approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions ``State of
Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport Regarding the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard'' submitted by the State of Colorado on June 18,
2009. The Colorado Interstate Transport SIP revisions submitted June
18, 2009 address the requirements of Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). In this Federal Register action EPA proposes
approval of the Colorado SIP sections that address the requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibiting a state's emissions from
contributing significantly to any other state's nonattainment of the
NAAQS. EPA will act at a later date on the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP sections that address the requirement prohibiting a
state's emissions from interfering with any other state's maintenance
of the NAAQS. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2007-1032, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.

     Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2007-1032. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domenico Mastrangelo, Air Program,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (iv) The words Colorado and State mean the State of Colorado.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. Background Information
III. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
IV. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?
V. EPA's Review and Technical Information
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background Information

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA requires that a state's SIP must
contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of
emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in any other state; (2) interfere with maintenance of the
NAAQS by any other state; (3) interfere with any other state's required
measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality; or (4)
interfere with any other state's required measures to protect
visibility. On June 11, 2008, the State of Colorado submitted to EPA an
Interstate Transport SIP addressing the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In response to EPA's concerns
with the June 11, 2008 submittal, on December 30, 2008 the State
adopted and on June 18, 2009 submitted a revised SIP addressing the
requirements of elements (1) and (2) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State of Colorado is planning to submit in
June 2010 further revisions addressing the requirements of elements (3)
and (4) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the requirements of
elements (1) through (4) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado Interstate
Transport of Air Pollution SIP addressing the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On December
30, 2008, the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) adopted
the ``State of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the Requirements of
the Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
Regarding the 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard.'' Colorado submitted the
December 30, 2008 SIP revision to EPA on June 18, 2009. In this Federal
Register action EPA is proposing to approve only the language and
demonstration that addresses element (1) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i):
Prohibition of significant contribution to nonattainment of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

IV. What Is the State Process To Submit These Materials to EPA?

    Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses EPA's rulemaking action on SIP
submissions by states. The CAA requires states to observe certain
procedural requirements in developing SIP revisions for submittal to
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA requires that each SIP revision be
adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. This must occur
prior to the revision being submitted by a state to EPA.
    The Colorado AQCC held a public hearing in December 2008 for the
interstate transport SIP revision: ``State of Colorado Implementation
Plan to Meet the Requirements of Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport Regarding the 1997 8-Hour
Ozone Standard.'' The AQCC adopted this revision on December 30, 2008,
and the State submitted it to EPA on June 18, 2009.
    On November 18, 2009, the AQCC provided EPA with an exact color
duplicate of the SIP adopted by the AQCC on December 30, 2008 and
included in the June 18, 2009 submittal to EPA. In the original
submittal, AQCC provided a black and white copy. The SIP's color
duplicate, available for review as part of the Docket, makes it easier
to understand modeling results reported in several graphs that are part
of the SIP technical demonstration.
    EPA has reviewed the submittal from the State of Colorado and has
determined that the State met the requirements for reasonable notice
and public hearing under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA.

V. EPA's Review and Technical Information

    The interstate transport provisions at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
also referred to as the ``good neighbor'' provisions, require that each
state's SIP contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
adversely affect any other state's air quality through interstate
transport of air pollutants. As discussed in the Background Information
section of this notice, a state's SIP must contain provisions that
satisfy the four elements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). On August 15,
2006, EPA issued guidance for SIP submissions addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 PM2.5
and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\ The portions of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP revision that address element (1) of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS are consistent with
EPA's 2006 guidance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(Aug. 15, 2006) (``2006 Guidance''). Available for review in EPA's
January 14, 2010 docket document entitled: ``Relevant Guidance and
Supporting Documentation for the Proposed Rulemaking Federal
Register Action Docket ID  EPA-R08-OAR-2007-1032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To demonstrate that emissions from Colorado do not contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state, the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP relies on a
combination of: (a) Modeling analysis done by the State as part of the
attainment demonstration SIP for the Denver Metropolitan Area/North
Front Range (DMA/NFR) nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard; (b) monitoring data gathered by states and reported to EPA in
the Air Quality System (AQS) database; and (c) considerations of
geographical and meteorological factors. In this action, EPA expands on
the analysis of geographical and meteorological factors, and of ozone
concentration levels reflecting AQS monitoring data.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) provides that EPA cannot approve a state's
SIP for a new or revised NAAQS unless it contains adequate measures to
prohibit emissions from sources within the state from contributing
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state. EPA's
August 15, 2006 guidance to states concerning section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
recommended various methods by which states might evaluate whether or
not its emissions significantly contribute to violations of the 1997
ozone standards in another state. Among other methods, EPA recommended
consideration of available EPA modeling conducted in conjunction with
CAIR,\2\ or in the absence of such EPA modeling, consideration of other
information such as the amount of emissions, the geographic location of
violating areas, meteorological data, or various other forms of
information that would be relevant to assessing the likelihood of
significant contribution to violations of the NAAQS in another state.
The assessment of significant contribution to nonattainment is not
restricted to impacts upon areas that are formally designated
nonattainment. Consistent with EPA's approach in CAIR, this impact must
be evaluated with respect to any monitors showing a violation of the
NAAQS (70 FR 25172, May 12, 2005, and 63 FR 57371, October 27, 1998).
Furthermore, although relevant information other than modeling may be
considered in assessing the likelihood of significant contribution to
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in another state, EPA
notes that no single piece of information in the following discussion
is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all
the evidence taken together supports the conclusion that emissions from
Colorado sources are unlikely to contribute significantly to violations
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard in any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this action the expression ``CAIR'' refers to the final
rule published in the May 12, 2005 Federal Register and entitled
``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to NOX SIP Call; Final Rule'' (70 FR 25162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Colorado Interstate Transport SIP uses results from Colorado's
2009 ``8-Hour Ozone Attainment Plan'' for the DMA/NFR nonattainment
area, and a report from the Western States Air Resource (WESTAR)
Council to underscore that: (a) Local anthropogenic ozone contribution
to high ozone concentrations in Denver is only about 25%; and (b) on
days of highest ozone concentrations (reflecting a design value of 84.9
ppb) in the DMA/NFR area, the projected design values decrease to 63
ppb or less for all downwind Colorado counties east of an imaginary
north-south line approximately 70 miles east from Denver.\3\ EPA does
not accept the State of Colorado Interstate Transport SIP assessment
that these results

demonstrate that `` the magnitude of ozone transport from Colorado to
other states is too low to significantly contribute to nonattainment in
* * * any other state with respect to the 0.08 ppb NAAQS.'' \4\
Similarly, EPA does not accept the claim in Colorado's SIP that the
absence of violations of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS in adjacent downwind
states such as Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming suffices to show that
emissions from Colorado sources do not significantly affect farther
downwind ozone nonattainment areas such as St. Louis.\5\ The relatively
limited contribution of local emissions to nonattainment in the DMA/
NFR, the quick drop in ozone levels in the easternmost Colorado
counties, and even the substantial gap between the 1997 NAAQS and
design values in adjacent downwind states do not exclude a potential
significant contribution from Colorado emissions to downwind
nonattainment areas. However, as a reflection of emission levels, the
relatively (to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS) moderate ozone
concentrations in eastern Colorado and in adjacent downwind states
somewhat reduces the probability of significant ozone contribution from
Colorado emission sources to considerably farther downwind
nonattainment areas such as St. Louis, Missouri, and Chicago, Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Figure 5, page 15 of the Interstate Transport SIP
submitted June 18, 2009. It must be noted that the modeling analysis
domain for the DMA/NFR attainment plan was limited to the State
territory, and that the 70-mile distance represents the approximate
distance from Denver to the western border of Morgan County.
    \4\ ``State of Colorado Implementation Plan to Meet the
Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate
Transport Regarding the 1997 8-hour Ozone Standard,'' p. 17,
December 12, 2009.
    \5\ Ibid., pp. 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, significant contribution should be measured not just
against nonattainment areas, but also against areas with monitors
showing violations of the NAAQS. That said, nonattainment areas are a
convenient starting point for EPA's analysis. For the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, the St. Louis area and the Illinois and Wisconsin Counties along
the southwestern shore of Lake Michigan (Illinois/Wisconsin area) are
the designated downwind nonattainment areas closest to Colorado.\6\
EPA's evaluation of whether emissions from Colorado contribute
significantly to ozone nonattainment in these areas relies on an
examination of a variety of data and analysis that provide insight on
ozone transport from Colorado to these two areas. Because EPA does not
have detailed modeling for Colorado and nearby downwind states, our
approach does not rely on a quantitative determination of Colorado's
contribution, as EPA did for other states in its CAIR rulemaking, but
on a weight-of-evidence analysis based on qualitative assessments and
estimates of the relevant factors. While conclusions reached for each
of the factors considered in the following analysis are not in and by
themselves determinative, consideration of all of these factors
provides a reliable qualitative conclusion on whether Colorado's
emissions are likely to contribute significantly to nonattainment in
the St. Louis and the Illinois/Wisconsin areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Wisconsin nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard include: Door, Kewaunee, Manitowoc, Sheboygan, Ozaukee,
Washington, Milwaukee, Waukesha, Racine and Kenosha counties; the
Chicago nonattainment area includes Cook County and several adjacent
Illinois and Indiana counties (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment area is approximately 900
miles east/northeast from the Colorado DMA/NFR area. Distance per se is
not an obstacle to long range transport of ozone and/or its precursors,
as discussed in the January 30, 2004 notice proposing CAIR (69 FR
4599). NOx, the primary ozone precursor that was the object of the CAIR
transport study, may be transported for long distances, contributing
significantly to high ozone concentrations in other states. However,
with increasing distance there are greater opportunities for ozone or
NOX dispersion and/or removal from the atmosphere due to the
effect of winds or chemical sink processes. As a result, one may
conclude that the 900-mile distance from Colorado sources of
NOX emissions and the Illinois/Wisconsin area reduces, but
does not exclude, the possibility of significant contribution to this
area's nonattainment.
    Another transport factor is wind direction. For long range
transport winds, a modeling analysis of ozone dispersion during the
summer months (June to August) of the five-year period 1991-1995 shows
that on high local ozone days the prevailing long range transport winds
in States immediately to the east and north of Colorado (Kansas,
Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and North Dakota) had a
southerly direction. On high regional ozone days, during the same
period, regional transport winds in the same States were southwesterly,
but with a westerly component so weak that a greater portion of
NOX emissions from Colorado would likely remain
significantly west of the Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment area.\7\ To
the extent that these results are representative of general ozone
transport patterns not limited to the 1991-1995 period, the weak
western component of long range transport winds during high ozone days
in the States east and north of Colorado provides evidence that
NOX emissions from Colorado are unlikely to contribute
significantly to violations of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Illinois/
Wisconsin counties along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG), Air Quality
Analysis Workgroup: ``3.3 Climatology of Ozone Synoptic Scale
Transport in the Eastern US,'' Figures 1(a) and 5(a), pp. 3, 6,
January 11, 1998. High ozone days were days with ozone
concentrations in the 90th percentile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional circumstantial evidence supporting this conclusion is
found in technical documentation developed in recent years by the
States of Kansas and Wisconsin. To support its Interstate Transport
SIP, the State of Kansas submitted to EPA Region 7 technical
documentation that includes back trajectory analyses gauging the
pathway of air masses impacting the Illinois/Wisconsin nonattainment
area on the four days with highest ozone concentrations during each of
the years 2005-2007. The back trajectory analyses in Appendix G of the
technical support section show that, for the four days with the highest
ozone readings, none of the pathways followed by air masses moving into
the Chicago Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or into several of the
Wisconsin nonattainment counties came from Colorado. Since these back
trajectories refer to the pathways of air masses and not specifically
to ozone transport, the results of this analysis cannot be considered
determinative as to the significant contribution of ozone or
NOX from Colorado emissions to the nonattainment counties
along the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. However, the lack of
any back trajectories from Colorado indicates that it is unlikely that
NOX emissions from the State contribute significantly to the
nonattainment of the Illinois/Wisconsin area.
    Further support is given by a recent attainment demonstration by
the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) for the
nonattainment counties along the southwestern shores of Lake
Michigan.\8\ The WDNR analysis identifies heavy industrial activity and
dense urbanization as the major local contributors to the high ozone
concentrations in the Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin Counties along
the southwestern shores of Lake Michigan. Between 40 and 60 percent of
the maximum ozone concentrations in the Lake Michigan airshed is
attributed to

regional transport, occurring from emission sources located within a
south-southwesterly arc spanning from 160 to 270 degrees (compass
direction). Colorado's location at the western margins of this arc
(Denver is approximately 260 degrees southwest of Chicago)
substantially reduces the likelihood for NOX emissions from
the State to contribute significantly to nonattainment in the Illinois/
Wisconsin area.\9\ Given the southerly orientation of regional
transport winds in States east and north of Colorado, it is likely that
Colorado ozone or NOX emissions would be heavily dispersed
in a northward direction west of this nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, ``Attainment
Demonstration--The Wisconsin Counties of Kenosha, Racine, Milwaukee,
Waukesha, Ozaukee, Washington, Sheboygan, Manitowoc and Door,''
September 2009.
    \9\ Ibid., p. 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, by 2008, the 8-hour ozone design values for the Illinois
and Wisconsin nonattainment counties along the shores of Lake Michigan
fell below the level of the NAAQS, a reduction attributed to the
implementation of State and Federal control measures since the
designation of these counties as nonattainment in 2004. In other words,
were there emissions from Colorado sources reaching the Illinois and
Wisconsin counties along the western rim of Lake Michigan, they would
no longer be significantly contributing to violations of the NAAQS in
that area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other nonattainment area, St. Louis and adjacent counties, is
approximately 800 miles straight east from the Colorado DMA/NFR area.
This substantial distance does not, in and by itself, exclude the
possibility of significant contribution from Colorado's NOX
emissions to nonattainment in the St. Louis area. However, it is also
sufficient to provide many opportunities for ozone dispersion and
removal from the atmosphere due to the effect of winds and chemical
sink processes, and thus reduce the likelihood of significant
contribution from Colorado to nonattainment in this area.
    The impact of wind direction on ozone transport from Colorado to
the St. Louis area is gauged through the results of several findings.
Kansas, immediately east of Colorado and west of Missouri, is
characterized by strong southerly surface winds that match prevailing
regional transport winds, which have a southerly orientation during
days of elevated ozone concentration. Throughout 2005 its winds
averaged daily speeds slightly over 9 mph.\11\ The OTAG modeling
analysis referred to earlier shows that, during the five years from
1991 to 1995, on high ozone days regional transport winds in Kansas and
Missouri have a prevailing southerly orientation. To the extent that
these results are representative of general ozone transport patterns
not limited to the 1991-95 period, they indicate that ozone/
NOX emissions from Colorado reaching Kansas or Missouri were
very likely to be redirected northward and away from the St. Louis
area, thus lessening the likelihood for a significant ozone
contribution to nonattainment from Colorado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the January 4, 2007 State of Kansas submittal to EPA of
Interstate Transport SIP revisions, Document ID EPA-R07-
OAR-2007-0141-0003, pp. 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Results from other studies are consistent with these tentative
conclusions. In a study published by OTAG in 1997, the St. Louis area
showed higher ozone concentrations (70 as compared with 55 ppb) on days
with winds from the south or the east than on days with winds from the
west (the general direction from Colorado) or southwest.\12\ More
recent back trajectory analyses gauging the pathway of air masses
impacting St. Louis on days of high ozone allow similar conclusions.
The State of Kansas' technical documentation supporting its Interstate
Transport SIP (approved by EPA in March 2007) include back trajectory
analyses independent of their source regions (i.e., Colorado or
Kansas.) The results show that for each of the 2005-2007 years, on the
four days with the highest ozone readings the frequency of trajectory
``contribution'' from Colorado to St. Louis was negligible. There is
only one instance of a 500 meter trajectory from Colorado, while there
were none for transport at 1500 meter of altitude.\13\ These findings,
in combination with the other circumstantial evidence examined above,
strengthen the conclusion that it is unlikely that emissions from
Colorado sources contribute significantly to the nonattainment of the
St. Louis area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ OTAG, ``Ozone as Function of Local Wind Speed and
Direction: Evidence of Local and Regional Transport,'' p. 33, July
26, 1997.
    \13\ Document ID EPA-R07-OAR-2007-0141-0003, Appendix
G.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, EPA must consider not only significant
contribution to nonattainment areas, but also to areas with monitors
showing violations of the NAAQS. A review of the AQS monitoring data
for adjacent downwind states shows that it is highly unlikely that
emissions from Colorado contribute significantly to downwind areas that
have monitors showing violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Between 1999 and 2008 there were no violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS at any of the monitors in adjacent downwind states, such as
Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming.
    Design values for the years 2005-2007 \14\ show that in adjacent
downwind states such as Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming, there were no
violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and that in most counties
ozone levels remained substantially below the NAAQS. In Kansas, the
2007 design value for Trego County, the county with a monitoring
station closest to Colorado, was 71 ppb, or 16 percent below the ozone
NAAQS. The counties that had the highest design values are at or near
the eastern edge of the state, about 400 miles from Colorado's eastern
border, and their design values ranged from 76 ppb for Johnson and
Sumner Counties to 77 ppb for Leavenworth and Wyandotte Counties. In
Nebraska and Wyoming, the highest ozone design values did not exceed 69
ppb in Douglas County, Nebraska and 72 ppb in Sublette County, Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Table 4, pages 7 and 8, of the Colorado Interstate
Transport SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The historical trend over the period 1998-2008 for the 1997 8-hour
ozone design values in these states places the 2005-2007 data reviewed
above in context. In Nebraska, ozone design values were consistently
low throughout the period. In Wyoming, design values were also constant
in most of the monitored areas, where ozone monitoring only began
between 2003 and 2005. Kansas design values show a clear trend of
declining ozone levels from the late 1990s to the most recent years. In
Linn, Sedgwick, and Sumner Counties, design values decreased from highs
ranging between 77 and 82 ppb during 2000-2003 to levels ranging
between 66 and 75 ppb in 2006-2008.
    The data and weight of evidence analysis presented above support
the conclusion of the Colorado Interstate Transport SIP (adopted into
the State SIP on December 30, 2008 and submitted to EPA June 18, 2009)
that emissions from Colorado do not contribute significantly to
nonattainment in any other state for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
consistently with the requirements of element (1) of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i).

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing partial approval of the Colorado SIP to meet the
requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding the 1997 ozone
standard. Specifically, in this action EPA is proposing to approve only
the language and demonstration that, in this SIP revision, address the
requirements of element (1): Prohibition of significant

contribution to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state. At a later date, EPA will act on the language and
demonstration addressing element (2): prohibition of interference with
maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: March 18, 2010.
Carol L. Campbell,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2010-6893 Filed 3-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 26899-26901]
[DOCID:fr04jn09-119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59990; File No. SR-BATS-2009-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

May 28, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 21, 2009, BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the

Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. BATS has designated the proposed rule change
as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange. While changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this
proposal will be effective upon filing, the changes will become
operative on May 22, 2009.
    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 Exchange proposes to modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange effective May 22, 2009, in order to extend the same fee
charged by the Exchange for its ``CYCLE'' routing strategy ($0.0025 per
share) to any executions that result from the Exchange's ``RECYCLE''
routing. The Exchange recently filed an immediately effective rule
change with the Commission that permits the Exchange to offer Exchange
Members the option to mark an order as eligible for re-routing if the
order has been routed away from the Exchange then posted to the BATS
Book and then another Trading Center locks or crosses such posted
order.\5\ Such additional routing is referred to by the Exchange as
RECYCLE routing. As noted above, the Exchange will charge the same fee
for executions that result from RECYCLE routing as it does for CYCLE
routing. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add a reference to
RECYCLE on its fee schedule everywhere that CYCLE is referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SR-BATS-2009-012 (filed May 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\6\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. Finally, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rates are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes
any burden on competition.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change 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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has been designated as a fee
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(2) thereunder,\9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee or
other charge imposed on members by the Exchange. Accordingly, the
proposal is effective upon filing with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 89s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2009-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2009-016. 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 changes between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of BATS. 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 No. SR-BATS-2009-016 and should be submitted on or before June 25,
2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-12983 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: November 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 227)]
[Notices]
[Page 71358-71360]
[DOCID:fr28no05-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52806; File No. SR-PCX-2005-88]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule
Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Relating to Dissemination of Index
Values

November 18, 2005.
    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 July 27, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (``PCX'' or ``Exchange''),
through its wholly owned subsidiary PCX Equities, Inc. (``PCXE''),
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 PCX. The PCX filed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 to
the proposal on September 16, 2005, and October 27, 2005,
respectively.\3\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested
persons. In addition, the Commission is granting accelerated approval
of the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 clarified the time during which the current
value of an index underlying a Portfolio Depositary Receipt or
Investment Company Unit must be disseminated. Amendment No. 2, which
replaced and superseded the original filing and Amendment No. 1 in
their entirety, retained the clarification proposed in Amendment No.
1 and, in addition, revised the proposal to provide that the last
official calculated index value must remain available during any
period when the official index value does not change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The PCX, through its wholly owned subsidiary PCXE, proposes to
amend its rules governing the Archipelago Exchange (``ArcaEx''), the
equities trading facility of PCXE. Specifically, the PCX proposes to
amend the listing standards for Investment Company Units (``ICUs'') and
Portfolio Depositary Receipts (``PDRs'') to provide that the current
value of an index underlying a series of ICUs or PDRs must be widely
disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15
seconds during the time the ICU or PDR trades on ArcaEx. The proposed
rules also provide that the last official calculated index value must
remain available during any period when the official index value does
not change. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
PCX's Web site (http://www.pacificex.com) 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 had received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III below. The PCX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    PCXE Rule 5.2(j)(3), Commentary .01 and PCXE Rule 8.100, Commentary
.01 provide listing standards for ICUs and PDRs, respectively, to
permit the listing and trading of these securities pursuant to Rule
19b-4(e) under the Act.\4\ Rule 19b-4(e) provides that the listing and
trading of a new derivative securities product by a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') will not be deemed a proposed rule change,
pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of Rule 19b-4, if the Commission has
approved, pursuant to section 19(b) of the Act, the SRO's trading
rules, procedures and listing standards for the product class that
would include the new derivative securities product and the SRO has a
surveillance program for the product class.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(e).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 40761 (December 8,
1998), 63 FR 70952 (December 22, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's rules for ICUs and PDRs currently provide that the
current value of an index underlying a series of ICUs or PDRs will be
disseminated every 15 seconds over the consolidated tape. The Exchange
believes that, rather than identifying specifically in its rules the
index dissemination service (that is, the consolidated tape), it is
preferable to reflect in its rules a requirement for wide dissemination
of the underlying index values. Accordingly, the proposal revises the
PCXE's rules to provide that the value of the underlying index must be
widely disseminated by a reputable index dissemination service, such as
the Consolidated Tape Association, Reuters, or Bloomberg. The Exchange
believes that the specific identity of the index dissemination service
is not necessary, and the purpose of the rules would be achieved, as
long as the service used for dissemination is reputable, accepted in
the investment community, and effects appropriately wide dissemination
of the particular index.
    The Exchange therefore proposes to revise the listing standards for
ICUs and PDRs to provide that the value of the underlying index must be
widely disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least
every 15 seconds during the time when the ICU or PDR trades on ArcaEX.
    As currently is the case, if the official index value does not
change during some or all of the period when trading is occurring (as
is typically the case with pre-market-open and after-hours trading, and
also with foreign indexes because of time zone differences or holidays
in the countries where such indexes' components trade), then the last
official calculated index value must remain available during the time
the ICU or PDR trades on ArcaEx.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of section 6(b)(5),\7\ in particular, because it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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 change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

III. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-PCX-2005-88 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-88. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-88 and should be
submitted on or before December 19, 2005.

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

    After careful consideration, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities 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.\9\ The proposal amends
the PCXE's rules to provide that the current value of an index
underlying a series of ICUs or PDRs must be widely disseminated by one
or more major market data vendors at least every 15 seconds during the
time the ICU or PDR trades on ArcaEx. In its proposal, the PCX states
that ``one or more major market data vendors'' would include the
Consolidated Tape Association or private vendors, such as Reuters or
Bloomberg. The Commission believes, however, that it is critical that
such service widely disseminate such index values to market
participants. The Commission notes that the rules of several other SROs
contain an identical index dissemination requirement,\10\ and that the
proposed index dissemination requirement is similar to the index
dissemination requirement used in the listing standards for narrow-
based index options.\11\ The Commission believes that the index
dissemination requirement will help to ensure the transparency of
current index values for indexes underlying series of ICUs and PDRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \10\ See, e.g., Amex Rules 1000, Commentary .03; and 1000A,
Commentary .02 (listing standards for PDRs and Index Fund Shares);
NASD Rule 4420(i) and (j) (listing standards for PDRs and Index Fund
Shares); and Phlx Rule 803(i) and (l) (listing standards for Trust
Shares and Index Fund Shares). See also Amex Order, Phlx Order, and
NASD Order at note 13, infra.
    \11\ See e.g., Chicago Board Options Exchange Rule 24.2(b);
International Securities Exchange Rule 2002(b); Pacific Exchange
Rule 5.13; and Philadelphia Stock Exchange Rule 1009A(b) (listing
standards for narrow-based index options requiring that, among other
things, the current underlying index value be reported at least once
every 15 seconds during the time the index option trades on the
exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCX's rules also provide that the last official calculated
index value must remain available during any period when the official
index value does not change. As stated above, the PCX notes that
periods when the official index value underlying an ICU or PDR do not
change occur at the pre-market-open, during after-hours trading
sessions, and for certain foreign indexes underlying an ICU or PDR,
based on the time zone differences or foreign holidays.\12\ The
Commission notes that this provision is consistent with other SRO
proposals that the Commission has approved recently.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Nothing herein is meant to address the situation of whether
the ICU or PDR can actually remain trading when the primary market
has halted or suspended trading in the underlying components or the
official index provider ceases to disseminate and/or calculate the
official index value during official day time trading hours. Rather,
the provision is merely meant to address those times that the
underlying value is unavailable on a real time basis because the
marketplace for the component securities is not open for trading for
legitimate business reasons, such as due to the time difference
between the foreign and U.S. markets.
    \13\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 52572
(October 7, 2005), 70 FR 60125 (October 14, 2005) (notice of filing
and order granting accelerated approval to File No. SR-PHLX-2005-57)
(``Phlx Order''); 51868 (June 17, 2005), 70 FR 36672 (June 24, 2005)
(notice of filing and order granting accelerated approval to File
No. SR-Amex-2005-044) (``Amex Order''); and 51559 (April 15, 2005),
70 FR 20787 (April 21, 2005) (notice of filing of File No. SR-NASD-
2005-024) (all noting that, if the official index value does not
change during some or all of the time when trading is occurring, as
is typically the case with pre-market open and after-hours trading,
and also with foreign indexes due to time zone differences or
holidays in the countries where the indexes' components trade, then
the last official calculated index value must remain available
throughout the market's trading hours). The Commission subsequently
approved the NASD's proposal, as well as the proposals by the
American Stock Exchange and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51748 (May 26, 2005), 70 FR
32684 (June 3, 2005) (order approving File No. SR-NASD-2005-024)
(``NASD Order'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PCX has requested that the Commission find good cause for
approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after
publication of notice of filing thereof in the Federal Register. As
noted above, the Commission has approved identical index dissemination
requirements for other SROs.\14\ The Commission received no comments
regarding these proposals. The Commission believes that granting
accelerated approval of the PCX's proposal will allow the PCX to
implement the same index dissemination requirement that the Commission
has approved for other SROs, thereby helping the PCX to

compete with these markets. Accordingly, the Commission finds good
cause, consistent with sections 6(b)(5) and 19(b) of the Act, to
approve the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirtieth
day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Amex Order, NASD Order, and PHLX Order, supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-2005-88), as amended, is
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6556 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


MEMORANDUM

To: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket id: OAR-2-13-0602

From: Region 5, EPA

Summary: The following questions were submitted to EPA prior to an 8/27/14 conference call between EPA and WI DNR about the proposed carbon power plan for existing power plants.

Additional comments from Wisconsin.

Follow-up Wisconsin DNR Questions/Issues for EPA re: Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule
                            Updated August 20, 2014

Miscellaneous:

   1. At a macro level, how does EPA envision the requirements for the GHG NSPS under 111(b) for new sources, the "modified and reconstructed" proposal under 111(b) and the 111(d) requirements playing together for permitting purposes?

   2. Does EPA have state-specific compliance costing estimates available? If not, when will this information become available?

   3. (NEW) What is the legal justification for excluding actions by sources that are not affected units (e.g., industrial sources)?  Under the NOx SIP call, industrial sources were allowed to opt into the program so that emissions reductions from these sources could be credited under that program.  Why are industrial sources not allowed a similar "opt in" possibility for compliance?  The one option that does appear available under the proposed rule is for industrial CHP units providing electricity to the grid may be used for compliance.  Is this true? Is there a minimum monitoring requirement for such units?

   4. (NEW) We understand that EPA does not intend to issue a model rule with a trading program or require participation in a cap-N-trade system.  However, there is significant interest in EPA providing the infrastructure such as a CO2 / MWh tracking system such as CAMD provides now for tracking allowances under the Acid Rain, NOx SIP call and CAIR/CSAPR systems.  This system is already used to track CO2 emissions from the power plants.  The states could then structure programs to allow trading that utilizes this infrastructure.  Are there barriers or legal impediments to EPA providing this infrastructure for national trading?

   5. (NEW) Revising State Plans:
      a.      Currently, states can submit SIPs for federal approval and then make changes to these SIPs with federal approvals at a later date.  Is there any prohibition to do the same with state plans under 111(d) after the initial submittal and approval of a state plan.
      b.      If the state can change a plan, can such a change include updating electricity load growth rates (based on better information) that were used in originally calculating mass caps under an approved plan.

Related to calculation of mass-based goals
   1. Can EPA provide a clear, repeatable method to be used by all states to convert from an emissions rate to mass?

   2. The proposed rule language seems to indicate that the mass emission limitation is the result of multiplying the emission rate limit by the projected generation (w/o the rule in place) of the state's fossil fuel fleet (units > 25 MW).  Is this correct?  For example, the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) is currently assuming a baseline growth in electricity load of 0.8% per year.  Is it correct to use this type of best estimated value.  Or does the projection of generation need to be based on EPA's 0.35% growth rate after applying the EE building block.  Do other building block type of actions need to be accounted for in some way?  Another factor is whether the projection of generation for calculating a mass limit need to include units other than the fossil fuel plants (e.g. baseline renewable, nuclear, etc...)?

Related to use of existing state programs for compliance:
   1. What would it mean to have state programs (e.g., RPS or EERS programs) become federally enforceable?  What would be the consequences if one of these programs failed to meet the goals laid out in the state plan? Would there be any consequences for that program?  Or would the state just be responsible for making up the difference?

   2. Similarly, is EPA planning to set criteria for what kinds of renewable electricity may count towards compliance or will EPA defer to decisions states have already made about this?  (This relates to decisions such as whether to count biomass-derived power, co-firing of renewables and fossil fuels, thresholds for hydro power, the shelf life of RECs, etc.)

   3. Which entity will certify individual renewable facilities as eligible for 111(d)? (i.e. EPA, states, program administrators of tracking systems).

   4. Will the EPA establish avoided CO2 per MWh of renewable energy, or let states' propose?

   5. Related to energy efficiency: does EPA plan to allow "gross" energy efficiency savings (i.e., all avoided generation/emissions) to count towards compliance or would compliance be limited to "net" savings (i.e., only those measures that are believed to have occurred as a direct effect of the program)?  Does EPA expect states to make an effort to exclude "free riders" from compliance?  Some states have methods to make these estimates, but it is a somewhat subjective distinction to make and would be hard to do so consistently between states.
Alternative approaches:
   1. EPA discusses (on pages 313-320 of the prepublication Preamble) an alternative approach based on application of building block 1 accompanied by reductions in coal generation (indirectly determined through building blocks 2-4).  Are there any supplemental materials available that describe this approach in more detail?  How does the overall goal determined by this approach differ from that proposed?

Questions answered by Region 5:
Miscellaneous
   1. Can international trans-boundary renewables/hydro be used for compliance purposes? E.g., purchased hydro from Manitoba?

   2. Time provided under the proposal for 111(d) plans is inadequate to develop rules and/or have statutory changes made.  EPA may, therefore, have to FIP states. Please provide details on what EPA's FIP will entail/contain.

   3. What is the penalty for missing the date to submit a plan (other than a FIP)?  Will other CAA sanctions apply?

   1. Is there a mechanism for states to take credit for actions by sources that are not affected units (e.g., industrial sources)?  For example, if a non-affected industrial source removes coal-fired boilers and replaces them with lower CO2 emitting natural gas fired boilers?  If yes, please provide an explanation of how this can be done.  (follow-up question added above)

Adjusting state goals
   1. If a state decides to comply with a mass-based standard, would it be possible to adjust the goals in the future if the projections used to determine the goal prove to be way off?  Some reasons to make such adjustments might be an unanticipated, long drought that lowers production from hydropower or the severe failure and shutdown of a nuclear plant or some other EGU.

   2. Would it be possible to base the goals in building block 1 on what is achievable at a state or regional level rather than what is achievable for the country as a whole?
Trading programs:
   1. How does EPA envision using existing tracking systems for renewable energy certificates (RECs) such as M-RETS?  Could states use these existing programs, which track RECs and allow entities to purchase RECs (representing MWh of renewable electricity), as a way to demonstrate compliance with the renewable electricity parts of state goals?

   2. If EPA allows use of M-RETS and other tracking systems for compliance, would it be possible to expand these systems to track and trade energy efficiency?  Would EPA allow such an approach?

   3. Does EPA envision needing separate trading systems for pounds of CO2 and for megawatt hours of electricity avoided/generated?
Existing state programs:
   4. Does EPA plan to allow states to use tried and tested state approaches for estimating energy efficiency and renewable electricity impacts, as long as such programs meet some minimum requirements?  For example, does EPA intend to let states who have developed rigorous ways to handle lifetime of EE measures to continue using their approach?