UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

DATE:

	March 18, 2008

SUBJECT:

	Technical Support Document for the Wayne County, Pennsylvania 8-hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan and Base Year 2002 Inventory

 FROM:

	Gregory Becoat, Environmental Scientist  /s/

Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21)

TO:

REVIEWED BY:	SIP Docket File

               /s/

Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief

Air Quality Planning Branch (3AP21)

I.	Affected Regulation

This revision to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Implementation
Plan (SIP) applies to the Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory
for Wayne County, Pennsylvania.

II.	 Background

Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly by sources. Rather,
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)
react in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone.  The air
pollutants, VOCs and NOx, are referred to as precursors of ozone. The
CAA establishes a process for air quality management through the
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.

In 1979, EPA established the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm) averaged over one
hour.  Wayne County was designated as nonattainment for this standard.
On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act (CAA) was amended and Section
107(d)(1)(C) provided that designations occurred by operation of law for
areas that had been designated nonattainment before enactment of the
amendments.  At this point, Wayne County was classified as an incomplete
data 1-hour ozone nonattainment area.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 In 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS and established a
new standard of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours.  In 2002, EPA began
the process to designate areas under the 8-hour ozone standard.  In
2004, Wayne County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, was designated
as an unclassifiable/attainment area for the 8-hour ozone standard based
on air quality data from 2001-2003.  See 40 CFR 81.339.

The ozone monitor sited closest to Wayne County is located in the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area.  Air quality data from 2004-2006 shows a
2006 design value of 0.075 ppm; therefore, Wayne County remains in
attainment with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

As of April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), EPA specified that even though the
1-hour ozone standard had been revoked, the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
designations and classification statuses were retained as of the
effective date of designation for the 8-hour NAAQS, for purposes of
anti-backsliding regulations (40 CFR 51.905).  Anti-backsliding
regulations apply even after revocation of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.

EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule (69 FR 23951, 23998 (April 30, 2004)
for the 8-hour ozone standard requires at 40 CFR 51.905(a)(iii) that
states submit an 8-hour maintenance plan to EPA for those 1-hour
nonattainment areas that had not been previously redesignated to
attainment/maintenance for the 1-hour standard.  The maintenance plan
needs to demonstrate that the area will maintain the standard for 10
years after designation in accordance with section 110(a)(1) of the CAA.

On December 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated EPA’s Phase 1 Implementation Rule for the
8-hour Ozone Standard (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004).  On June 8, 2007,
in South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, Docket No. 04-1201,
in response to several petitions for rehearing, the DC Circuit clarified
that the Phase 1 Rule was vacated only with regard to those parts of the
rule that had been successfully challenged.  Therefore, the Phase 1 Rule
provisions related to classifications for areas currently classified
under subpart 2 of Title I, Part D of the CAA.  The June 8 decision
reaffirmed the December 22, 2006 decision that EPA had improperly failed
to retain measures required for 1-hour nonattainment areas under the
anti-backsliding provisions of the regulations.

	On December 17, 2007, EPA received a request from the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) for approval under
section 110 of the CAA, a SIP revision pertaining to the Maintenance
Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory for Wayne County, Pennsylvania.  This
plan demonstrates how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania intends to
maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.  This maintenance plan contains a
base-year inventory for 2002 and demonstrates that emissions will not be
greater than the base year in 2009 and 2018.  The plan indicates how
maintenance plan progress will be tracked and identifies measures that
would be available to promptly correct any NAAQS violation.  The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s SIP submittal meets the CAA
requirements for SIP submittals under section 110(a)(1).

What are the components of a section 110(a)(1) 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan?

	On May 20, 2005, EPA issued guidance that applies to areas that are
designated as unclassifiable/attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard.
The purpose of this guidance is to address the maintenance requirements
in section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, and assist the states in the
development of a SIP.  The components from EPA’s guidance include:

1.  Attainment Inventory – The attainment inventory should be based on
actual “typical summer day” emissions of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for a 10-year maintenance period.
For purposes of an attainment emissions inventory, the state must choose
any of the three years on which the 8-hour ozone attainment designation
was based.

2.  Maintenance Demonstration – The area must demonstrate how it will
remain in compliance with the 8-hour ozone standard for a period of 10
years following the effective date of designation as
unclassifiable/attainment.  If the effective date of the areas’
designation for the 8-hour NAAQS was June 15, 2004, the maintenance plan
must project attainment for 2014 or beyond.

3.  Ambient Air Quality Monitoring - The state should continue to
operate air quality monitors in accordance with 40 CFR Part 58 to verify
maintenance of the 8-hour ozone standard.

4.  Contingency Plan – The state must develop measures so that in the
event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the measures can be
implemented as expeditiously as practicable after the violation.

5.  Verification of Continued Attainment – The state must indicate how
it intends on tracking the progress of the maintenance plan.  This is
necessary because emissions projections for the maintenance
demonstration depend on assumptions of point, area, and mobile source
growth.

B.  How has the state addressed the components of a section 110(a)(1)
8-hour ozone maintenance plan?

1.  Attainment Inventory – PADEP has provided a comprehensive and
current emissions inventory for VOCs and NOx.  PADEP included the 2002
Base-Year Inventory in order to project emissions.  Since the effective
year of the 8-hour ozone initial designation was 2004, PADEP is required
to project emissions for 10 years or beyond from the effective date of
initial designation.  Consequently, PADEP has developed an emissions
inventory for ozone precursors for the year 2002, 2009, and 2018.  In
the maintenance plan, PADEP included information on the man-made sources
of ozone precursors, VOCs and NOx (e.g., “Stationary sources,”
“Stationary area sources,” “Highway vehicles,” and “Nonroad
sources”).  The table below shows the VOCs and NOx emissions summary
for 2002, 2009, and 2018.  The Technical Appendices submitted with
Pennsylvania’s maintenance plan contain more detailed information for
each sector on the emissions inventories.

VOC Emissions Summary:  2002, 2009 and 2018

(tons per summer day)

Major Source Category	2002	2009	2018

Stationary Point Sources*	0.00	0.00	0.00

Stationary Area Sources	3.12	2.80	2.92

Highway Vehicles	2.54	1.66	0.96

Nonroad Sources	7.61	8.66	6.10

TOTAL	13.27	13.12	9.98

 * Values are greater than zero.  Values appear as zero due to rounding.

NOx Emissions Summary:  2002, 2009 and 2018

(tons per summer day)

Major Source Category	2002	2009	2018

Stationary Point Sources	0.10	0.10	0.10

Stationary Area Sources	0.32	0.34	0.36

Highway Vehicles	4.20	2.60	1.12

Nonroad Sources	1.46	1.35	0.99

TOTAL	6.08	4.39	2.57

To develop the VOCs and NOx base-year emission inventories, PADEP used
the approaches and sources of data listed below.  PADEP included point,
area, mobile on-road, and mobile non-road sources for a base-year of
2002.  More information on the compilation of the 2002 base-year
emissions inventory can be found in the Appendices submitted by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Point Source Emissions

Pennsylvania requires larger facilities to submit production figures and
emission calculations every year. The Factor Information Retrieval
(FIRE) Data System and EPA’s publication series AP-42 are used so that
throughput data can be multiplied by emission factors.  This process is
based on Source Classification Codes (SCC). Each process has at least
one assigned SCC code.  If the larger facilities provide more accurate
emission data based upon other factors, this data supersedes those
calculated using SCC codes.

Stationary Area Source Emissions

Stationary area sources includes industrial/commercial/residential
sources too small and/or numerous to be inventoried individually.
Examples include solvent use, waste disposal, or home heating.  The area
source values are adjusted to remove any double counting whenever there
is overlap between stationary point sources and stationary area sources.
 Pennsylvania developed emissions from area sources using emission
factors and SCC codes in a method similar to that used for stationary
point source emissions.  Emission factors may also be derived from
research and guidance documents if those documents are more accurate
than FIRE and AP-42 factors.  Throughput estimates are derived from
numerous data sources (e.g., county-level activity data, by apportioning
national or statewide activity data to counties, from census numbers,
and from county employee numbers).  More specific information on the
procedure used for each industry type is contained in Pennsylvania 2002
Area Source Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Estimation Methods, (E.H.
Pechan & Associates, Inc., February 2004) which is contained in the
Technical Appendix submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The
factors used for the temporal allocation of projections from the 2002
baseline inventory were provided by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air
Management Association (MARAMA), which is performing air quality
modeling for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.

Highway Vehicle Sources

Highway vehicle sources include passenger cars, light-duty trucks, other
trucks, buses, and motorcycles.  Pennsylvania uses MOBILE6.2, the
current EPA-approved highway vehicle emission model, to estimate highway
vehicle emissions.  Wayne County projected highway vehicle emissions
were estimated using MOBILE6.2 and PENNDOT estimates of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by vehicle type and roadway type.  More information on
highway methods is available in Pennsylvania’s submitted Technical
Appendices (Appendix C). The estimate used information specific to Wayne
County where appropriate.

Nonroad Sources

Nonroad sources covers a diverse collection of engines, including
outdoor power equipment, recreational vehicles, farm and construction
machinery, lawn and garden equipment, industrial equipment, recreational
marine, commercial marine vessels, locomotives, ships, aircraft, and
many other applications.  The 2002 emissions for the majority of nonroad
emission source categories were estimated using the EPA NONROAD2005
model, which estimates emissions for diesel, gasoline, liquefied
petroleum gasoline, and compressed natural gas-fueled nonroad equipment
types.  NONROAD does not estimate emissions from aircraft or
locomotives.  For 2002 locomotive emissions, PADEP projected emissions
from a 1999 survey using national fuel consumption information and EPA
emission and conversion factors.  There are no commercial aircraft
operations in Wayne County.  For 2002 aircraft emissions, PADEP
estimated emissions using small airport operation statistics from
www.airnav.com, and emission factors and operational characteristics in
the EPA-approved model, Emissions and Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS).

2.  Maintenance Demonstration – As the tables above indicate, the
total future emissions are projected to decrease during the 10-year
maintenance period. However, it is important to note that the formation
of ozone is dependent on a number of variables, which cannot be
estimated by emissions growth and reduction calculations alone.  Other
variables include, weather and the transport of ozone precursors from
areas outside of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  The following
Federal and state measures will be in place to ensure emissions during
the maintenance period are equal or less than the emissions in the
attainment year:

A.  Stationary Point Sources

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

The Federal CAIR regulations (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) will transition
from the NOx SIP Call electric generating unit regulations in 2009 and
continue to ensure that large electric generation facilities upwind of
the area will maintain background emissions at or below 2002 levels
while any new facilities locating within the area will be required to
obtain both offsets and allowances that will ensure ambient equivalence
with regard to ozone production potential.  Pennsylvania and other
nearby states are required to adopt a regulation implementing the
requirements of the CAIR or its equivalent.  On April 28, 2006, EPA
promulgated Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to reduce the interstate
transport of NOx and sulfur dioxides that contribute significantly to
nonattainment and interferes with maintenance of the 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.  The electric generating units (EGUs) in the CAIR-covered
States will be regulated under the FIPs until revisions to SIPs for the
implementation of the CAIR requirements are approved by EPA.  Wayne
County has no sources that are directly regulated by CAIR, and therefore
is not showing an emission reduction from this regulation.  However, the
quality of air transported from upwind sources into the county would be
improved.

Interstate Pollution Transport Reduction

Pennsylvania and other covered states adopted NOx control regulations
for large industrial boilers and internal combustion engines, EGUs, and
cement plants. The regulation covering industrial boilers and EGUs
required emission reductions to commence May 1, 2003, while the
regulation covering large internal combustion engines and cement plants
required emission reductions to commence May 1, 2005.  While there are
no affected units located in Wayne County, upwind NOx reductions from
affected sources in Pennsylvania and other states will assist in keeping
the area in attainment.

B.  Stationary Area Sources

Portable Fuel Containers

Pennsylvania adopted a portable fuel container regulation, 25 Pa Code
Chapter 130, Subchapter A, to address VOC loss resulting from permeation
through portable gasoline containers, evaporative loss through container
openings, and from spillage during the filling of small tanks on
machines such as lawn mowers, chain saws, jet skis.  The regulation
requires that portable fuel containers manufactured after January 1,
2003 for sale in Pennsylvania meet certain requirements.  PADEP
predicted that the portable fuel container regulation would be
completely phased in over a 10-year period.  Emission reduction
estimates for the program reflect this phased-in replacement of the
containers. EPA received Pennsylvania’s regulation as a SIP revision
on March 26, 2003 and approved on December 8, 2004 (69 FR 70893).

Consumer Products

The Consumer Products Rule, 25 Pa Code Chapter 130, Subchapter B,
applies statewide to any person who sells, supplies, offers for sale, or
manufactures certain consumer products on or after January 1, 2005, for
use in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania’s regulation
includes general provisions, VOC standards, innovative products,
administrative and reporting requirements, test methods, and provisions
for exemptions, variances, and alternative control plans for consumer
products.  Pennsylvania’s regulation was submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision on March 26, 2003 and approved on December 8, 2004 (69 FR
70895).

Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings

The Pennsylvania AIM Coatings regulation, 25 Pa Code Chapter 130,
Subpart C, applies statewide to any person who supplies, sells, offers
for sale, or manufactures, blends or repackages an AIM coating for use
within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The regulation does not apply
to the following: (1) Any AIM coating that is sold or manufactured for
use outside the Commonwealth or for shipment to other manufacturers for
reformulation or repackaging; (2) any aerosol coating product; or (3)
any AIM coating that is sold in a container with a volume of one liter
(1.057 quarts) or less. The AIM coatings regulation sets specific VOC
content limits, in grams per liter, for AIM coatings categories with a
compliance date of January 1, 2005. Manufacturers ensure compliance with
the limits by reformulating coatings and substituting coatings with
compliant coatings that are already in the market.  The regulation
contains VOC content requirements for a wide variety of field-applied
coatings, including graphic arts coatings, lacquers, primers and stains.
 The regulation also contains provisions for a variance from the VOC
content limits, which can be issued only after public hearing and with
conditions for achieving timely compliance.  In addition, the regulation
contains administrative requirements for labeling and reporting. There
are a number of test methods that would be used to demonstrate
compliance with the AIM Coatings regulation. Some of these test methods
include those promulgated by EPA and South Coast Air Quality Management
District of California. The methods used to test coatings must be the
most current approved method at the time testing is performed.

Pennsylvania’s regulation was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on
December 3, 2003, with a supplement submitted on October 19, 2004 and
approved on November 23, 2004 (69 FR 69080).

C.  Highway Vehicle Sources

Even with increases in VMT that occur from 2002 through 2018, highway
vehicle emissions of both VOC and NOx will continue to decrease.  As
more vehicles subject to cleaner new car standards replace older
vehicles subject to less stringent new vehicle standards, the fleet as a
whole emits fewer emissions, compensating for the increase in VMT.
These decreases can be attributed to the programs described below.

Federal Motor Vehicle Control Programs  (FMVCP)

FMVCP are for passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks and cleaner
gasoline.  In 2009 and 2018, vehicles manufactured to meet Federal
standards through Tier 0, 1, and 2 will still be in Pennsylvania’s
fleet.  Tier 1 tailpipe standards established by the CAA Amendments of
1990 include NOx and VOC limits for light-duty gasoline vehicles (LDGVs)
and light-duty gasoline trucks (LDGTs). These standards began to be
phased in starting with model year 1994.  Evaporative VOC emissions were
also reduced in gasoline-powered cars starting with model year 1998.

In 1998, under the authority of section 177 of the CAA, PADEP adopted
the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program.  (28 Pa B 5873, December 5,
1998.)  This program incorporates certain California Low Emission
Vehicle (CA LEV) emission standards for passenger cars and light-duty
trucks by reference.  As required under section 177 of the CAA, these
provisions are identical to the low emission standards adopted by
California, except that the regulation does not incorporate by reference
the California zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) or emissions control
warranty systems statement provisions.

In the same rulemaking, the Commonwealth adopted the National Low
Emission Vehicle (NLEV) program as a compliance alternative to the
Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program.  The NLEV program became effective
in the Ozone Transport Region in 1999.  Pennsylvania’s New Motor
Vehicle Emissions Control Program regulations (25 Pa Code Subchapter
126.401-126.441) allow automobile manufacturers to comply with NLEV
instead of CA LEV program through model year 2005.  These regulations
were in effect for new motor vehicles in the baseline year, 2002, and
affect vehicles 6,000 pounds or less.

In 1999, EPA promulgated regulations more stringent than NLEV (Tier 2),
starting with the 2004 model year.  However, in order to participate in
the NLEV program, Pennsylvania was required to adopt language that
extended its “commitment” to NLEV until the 2006 model year.
Ultimately, the NLEV program was replaced for model year 2004 and later
by the more stringent Federal “Tier 2” vehicle emissions regulations
(65 FR 6698, February 10, 2000), and vehicle manufacturers operating
under the NLEV program became subject to the Tier 2 requirements.
Therefore, the Federal Tier 2 program governs new vehicles sold in
Pennsylvania in the attainment year, 2004.  The incorporated CA LEV
requirements are applicable in Pennsylvania for model year 2006 and each
model year thereafter.

Pennsylvania Clean Vehicle Program for passenger vehicles and light-duty
trucks and cleaner gasoline

The New Motor Vehicle Control Program which includes the Pennsylvania
Clean Vehicles Program incorporated the California Low Emission Vehicle
Program (CA LEV II) by reference.  This allows automakers to comply with
the NLEV program as an alternative to this Pennsylvania program until
model year 2006.  As amended, the program affects model year 2008 and
newer passenger cars and light-duty trucks vehicles less than 8,500 lbs
gross vehicle weight rating (36 Pa B 7424, December 9, 2006).

Emissions for milestone years were estimated based on compliance with
the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program according to the methodology
described in section 7.4.1 of the Technical Guidance on the Use of
MOBILE6.2 for Emissions Inventory Preparation published by EPA’s
Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) in January 2002.  In
order to provide conservative estimates of emissions, Pennsylvania is
assuming in its MOBILE modeling that the Federal Tier 2 program applies
to subject vehicles sold in Pennsylvania from model year 2004 through
model year 2007 and the Pennsylvania Clean Vehicles Program applies to
subject vehicles sold in model year 2008 and beyond.

Heavy-Duty Diesel Control Programs

EPA promulgated more stringent national regulations for heavy-duty
engines and vehicles starting with model year 2004.  In addition, a
consent decree was agreed upon which required that diesel engines, made
by seven of the largest heavy-duty engine manufacturers companies,
comply with the 2004 standards in model year 2002.  Pennsylvania
includes these programs as provided in the MOBILE model.

In 2002, Pennsylvania adopted the Heavy-Duty Diesel Emissions Control
Program for model years starting after May 2004.  The program
incorporates California standards by reference and requires model year
2005 and subsequent new heavy-duty diesel highway engines to be those
certified by California.

EPA adopted new emission standards for heavy-duty engines and vehicles
for model year 2007 and subsequent.  For diesel engines, the standards
will be phased in from 2007 to 2010 for NOx and VOCs. For gasoline
engines, the standards will be phased in during model years 2008 and
2009.  Federal and California standards are identical for model year
2007 and beyond; the emission estimates use assumptions of the Federal
rule for these years.

EPA also required most highway diesel fuel to contain no more than 15
ppm of sulfur, since the fall of 2006.  Due to a temporary compliance
option, refiners may continue to produce up to 20 percent of their
highway diesel fuel at 500-ppm fuel.  Pennsylvania uses MOBILE defaults
to estimate the effects of the phase-in provision.

Changes to Vehicle Safety Inspection Program

PennDOT amended its vehicle safety inspection program to include a
visual inspection of certain pollution control components in counties
for which a separate vehicle emissions inspection program is not
required. These regulations can be found in 67 Pa Code Chapter 175.
Pennsylvania submitted the amended safety inspection program as a
revision to its SIP on December 1, 2003 and EPA approved the revision on
October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58313).

D.  Nonroad Sources

EPA has adopted a series of regulations affecting new diesel-powered and
gasoline-powered nonroad engines of various sizes and applications.
PADEP used the assumptions built into the nonroad model (NONROAD2005) to
estimate emissions for all milestone years.

EPA will also require diesel fuel used in most nonroad applications to
contain less sulfur.  The sulfur will prevent damage to the more
advanced emission control systems needed to meet the engine standard and
also reduce fine particulate emissions from diesel engines.  In 2007,
fuel sulfur levels will be limited to 500 ppm for nonroad applications
other than ocean-going marine vessels.  In 2010, fuel sulfur levels will
be reduced to the same sulfur concentration as in highway fuel, 15 ppm.
This requirement applies in 2012 to locomotive and marine diesel fuel.

Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the attainment
year emissions along with the additional measures, EPA concludes that
PADEP has successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard
should be maintained in Wayne County.

3.  Ambient Air Quality Monitoring –  PADEP commits to continue to
operate its current air quality monitor in accordance with 40 CFR Part
58, to verify the attainment status of the area, with no reductions in
the number of sites from those in the existing network unless
pre-approved by EPA.

4.  Contingency Plan – Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that the
state develop a contingency plan which will ensure that any violation of
a NAAQS is promptly corrected.  The purpose of the contingency plan is
to adopt measures, outlined in the maintenance plan, in order to assure
continued attainment in the event of a violation of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.  The maintenance plan should identify the events that would
“trigger” the adoption and implementation of a contingency
measure(s), the contingency measure(s) that would be adopted and
implemented, and the schedule indicating the time frame by which the
state would adopt and implement the measure(s).

The ability of Wayne County to stay in compliance with the 8-hour ozone
standard depends upon VOCs and NOx emissions in the area remaining at or
below 2002 base year inventory.  The Commonwealth’s maintenance plan
projects VOCs and NOx emissions to decrease and stay below 2002 levels
through the year 2018.  The maintenance plan outlines the procedures for
adoption and implementation of contingency measures to further reduce
emissions should a violation occur.

In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, contingency measures would be
considered if for two consecutive years the fourth highest 8-hour ozone
concentrations at the design monitor for the Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area
are above 84 ppb.  If this trigger point occurs, PADEP will evaluate
whether additional local emission control measures should be implemented
in Wayne County in order to prevent a violation of the air quality
standard.  PADEP will analyze the conditions leading to the excessive
ozone levels and evaluate what measures might be most effective in
correcting the excessive ozone levels.  PADEP will also analyze the
potential emissions effect of federal, state and local measures that
have been adopted but not yet implemented at the time the excessive
ozone levels occurred.  PADEP will then begin the process of
implementing any selected measures so that in the event of a violation,
the measures can be implemented as expeditiously as practicable after
the violation. Contingency measures to be considered for Wayne County
will include, but not limited to:

Non-regulatory measures:

Diesel retrofit (including replacement, repowering or alternative fuel
use) for public or private local onroad or offroad fleets.

Idling reduction technology for Class 2 yard locomotives.

Accelerated turnover of lawn and garden equipment, especially commercial
equipment, including promotion of electric equipment.

Additional promotion of alternative fuel (e.g. biodiesel) for home
heating and agricultural use.

Regulatory measures:

Additional controls on consumer products

Additional controls on portable fuel containers

       In the event that additional emission reductions are necessary,
PADEP will propose and adopt additional emission reduction measures to
attain and maintain the ozone NAAQS in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act, the Air Pollution Control Act, other Pennsylvania
statutory requirements, and PADEP’s Policy for Approval and
Distribution of Regulations.

	All measures taken were considered potential cost-effective and timely
control strategies by the regional planning organizations during their
2005-2006 ozone attainment deliberations.    The following schedule
displays the timeframe by which PADEP plans on implementing contingency
measures.

Non-regulatory measures:

Within 2 months:  Identify stakeholders for potential non-regulatory
measures.

Within 3 months:  If funding is necessary, identify potential sources of
funding and the timeframe under which funds would be available.  In
addition to non-Title V Clean Air funds, the following programs may be
able to provide funding:

Transportation projects, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
funds from the Federal Highway Administration, as allocated to the
Northern Tier RPO.

For projects which also have an energy efficiency co-benefit, the
Pennsylvania Energy Harvest program.

For projects which would be undertaken by small business and are
pollution prevention projects, the Small Business Advantage Grant and
Small Business Pollution Prevention Loan programs.

For projects which involve alternative fuels for vehicles/refueling
operations, the    Alternative Fuel Incentive Grant program.

For projects involving diesel emissions, federal Energy Policy Act
diesel reduction funds allocated to Pennsylvania or for which
Pennsylvania or project sponsors may apply under a competitive process.

Within 9 months:  If state loans or grants are involved, enter into
agreements with implementing organization (business, local government,
transit companies, non-profit entities, etc.).  Quantify projected
emission benefits.

Within 12 months:  Submit revised SIP to EPA.

Within 12-24 months:  Implement strategies and projects.

Regulatory measures:

Within 1 month of triggering event:  Submit request to begin regulatory
development process.

Within 3 months of triggering event:  Review by Air Quality Technical
Advisory Committee (AQTAC), Citizens Advisory Council and other advisory
committees as appropriate.

Within 6 months of triggering event:  Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
meeting/action.

Within 8 months of triggering event:  Publish in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin for comment as proposed rulemaking.

Within 10 months of triggering event:  Public hearing takes place and
comment period on proposed rule closes.

Within 11 months of triggering event:  House and Senate Standing
Committees and Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) comment
on proposed rule.

Within 13 months of triggering event:  AQTAC, Citizens Advisory Council
and other committee review responses to comments and draft final
rulemaking.

Within 16 months of triggering event:  EQB meeting/action.

Within 17 months of triggering event:  IRCC action on final rulemaking.

Within 18 months of triggering event:  Attorney General’s
review/action.

Within 19 months of triggering event:  Publish in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin as final rulemaking and submit to EPA as a SIP revision.   The
regulation would become effective upon publication in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.

5.  Verification of Continued Attainment – PADEP has indicated that
the attainment status of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for Wayne County will be
tracked by reviewing air quality at the design monitor for the
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre Area and emissions data during the maintenance
period.  PADEP also indicated that an annual evaluation of VMT and
emissions reported from stationary sources will be performed and
compared to the assumptions about the factors used in the maintenance
plan. PADEP will also evaluate the periodic (every three years) emission
inventories prepared under EPA’s Consolidated Emission Reporting
Regulation (40 CRF 51 Subpart A) for any unanticipated increases.  Based
on these evaluations, PADEP will consider whether any further emission
control measures should be implemented.

III.       Evaluation

EPA views that the five components required of Section 110(a)(1) 8-hour
ozone maintenance plan have been met.  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
has met the requirements to submit a Section 110(a)(1) maintenance plan
and has adequately addressed the components of a Section 110(a)(1) plan.
 Therefore, approval of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s 8-hour
Ozone Maintenance Plan and 2002 Base-Year Inventory is recommended.

IV.       Conclusion

This SIP revision request satisfies all requirements for an acceptable
SIP revision.

V.	    Recommended Agency Action

The SIP revision request should be approved.

 PAGE  1

 PAGE  13


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23559-23561]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG19-113-000.
    Applicants: Sage Draw Wind, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EWG Status Sage Draw
Wind, LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: EG19-114-000.
    Applicants: 231RC 8me LLC.

    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of 231RC 8me LLC.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5048.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-2774-003.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, Dominion Energy
Generation Marketing, Inc., Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc.,
NedPower Mount Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Dominion
Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Supplement to February 8, 2019 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Dominion Resources Services, Inc., on behalf of
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5257.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-303-003.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, NedPower Mount
Storm, LLC, Fowler Ridge Wind Farm LLC, Dominion Energy Nuclear
Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Energy Generation Marketing, Inc., Dominion
Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Supplement to February 8, 2019 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Dominion Resources Services, Inc., on behalf of
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et al.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5254.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1429-011.
    Applicants: Emera Maine.
    Description: Compliance Filing revising 2018-2019 Formula Rate
Charges of Emera Maine.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-601-003.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc., Appalachian Power Company, Indiana
Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power
Company, Wheeling Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma,
Southwestern Electric Power Company, AEP Energy Partners, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: MBR Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff
for Market Based Sales to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-606-003.
    Applicants: AEP Generation Resources Inc., Southwestern Electric
Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Wheeling Power
Company, Kingsport Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Indiana
Michigan Power Company, Appalachian Power Company, AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: MBR Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff
For Market-Based Sales to be effective 3/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5190.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1874-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original SA No. 5371; Queue
No. NQ147-1 to be effective 4/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5164.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1875-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Service Agreement
No. 5372; Queue No. AD2-097 to be effective 4/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5174.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1876-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Duke Energy Progress, LLC,
Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
    Description: Petition for Waiver of Tariff Provisions of the Duke
Southeast Companies.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5188.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1877-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Letter Agreement Acorn I
Energy Storage, LLC to be effective 4/23/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1878-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-05-15_SA 3301 Ameren-
KCPL Interchange Agreement to be effective 5/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5202.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1879-000.
    Applicants: Telysium Energy Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of MBR to be
effective 5/15/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20190515-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1880-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5364;
Queue No. AB2-160 to be effective 5/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1881-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA, SA No. 5366;
Queue No. AB2-161 to be effective 4/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1882-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original Interim ISA SA No.
5373; Queue No. AC1-204 to be effective 4/19/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1883-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation of South
Dakota OATT (Tariff ID 39) to be effective 7/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1884-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Cancellation: SA 663,
664 & 665, Service Agreements with PPL to be effective 5/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 5/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20190516-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-10684 Filed 5-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2489-2493]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00465]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71257; File No. SR-Phlx-2014-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
the Customer Rebate Program

January 8, 2014.
    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 January 3, 2014, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Customer Rebate Program in
Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend certain Customer Rebate tier
percentage thresholds and add a new tier to the

``Customer Rebate Program,'' in Section B of the Pricing Schedule to
provide members a greater opportunity to receive Customer rebates.
    Currently, the Exchange has a Customer Rebate Program consisting of
four tiers which pays Customer rebates on two Categories, A \3\ and
B,\4\ of transactions.\5\ A Phlx member qualifies for a certain rebate
tier based on the percentage of total national customer volume in
multiply-listed options which it transacts monthly on Phlx. The
Exchange calculates Customer volume in Multiply Listed Options by
totaling electronically-delivered and executed volume, except volume
associated with electronic Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
Orders,\6\ as defined in Exchange Rule 1080(o).\7\ The Exchange pays
the following rebates: \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Category A rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Simple Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Customer Simple Orders in Non-Penny Pilot Options in
Section II symbols. Rebates are paid on Customer PIXL Orders in
Section II symbols that execute against non-Initiating Order
interest. In the instance where member organizations qualify for
Tier 3 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer PIXL
Orders that execute against a PIXL Initiating Order are paid a
rebate of $0.14 per contract.
    \4\ Category B rebates are paid to members executing
electronically-delivered Customer Complex Orders in Penny Pilot
Options and Non-Penny Pilot Options in Section II. Rebates are paid
on Customer PIXL Complex Orders in Section II symbols that execute
against non-Initiating Order interest. In the instance where member
organizations qualify for Tier 3 or higher in the Customer Rebate
Program, Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex
PIXL Initiating Order will be paid a rebate of $0.17 per contract.
    \5\ See Section B of the Pricing Schedule.
    \6\ A QCC Order is comprised of an order to buy or sell at least
1000 contracts that is identified as being part of a qualified
contingent trade, as that term is defined in Rule 1080(o)(3),
coupled with a contra-side order to buy or sell an equal number of
contracts. The QCC Order must be executed at a price at or between
the National Best Bid and Offer and be rejected if a Customer order
is resting on the Exchange book at the same price. A QCC Order shall
only be submitted electronically from off the floor to the PHLX XL
II System. See Rule 1080(o). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64249 (April 7, 2011), 76 FR 20773 (April 13, 2011) (SR-
Phlx-2011-47) (a rule change to establish a QCC Order to facilitate
the execution of stock/option Qualified Contingent Trades (``QCTs'')
that satisfy the requirements of the trade through exemption in
connection with Rule 611(d) of the Regulation NMS).
    \7\ Members and member organizations under common ownership may
aggregate their Customer volume for purposes of calculating the
Customer Rebate Tiers and receiving rebates. Common ownership means
members or member organizations under 75% common ownership or
control.
    \8\ SPY is included in the calculation of Customer volume in
Multiply Listed Options that are electronically-delivered and
executed for purposes of the Customer Rebate Program, however, the
rebates do not apply to electronic executions in SPY.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Percentage thresholds of
                                                   national customer volume in
             Customer rebate tiers               multiply-listed equity and ETF     Category A      Category B
                                                 options classes, excluding SPY
                                                        options (monthly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1........................................  0.00%-0.75%.....................           $0.00           $0.00
Tier 2........................................  Above 0.75%-1.60%...............           *0.12           *0.17
Tier 3........................................  Above 1.60%-2.50%...............            0.16            0.19
Tier 4........................................  Above 2.50%.....................            0.17            0.19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Exchange will pay a $0.02 per contract rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 rebate to a Specialist
  or Market Maker or its affiliate under Common Ownership provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached
  the Monthly Market Maker Cap, as defined in Section II.

    The Exchange proposes to amend Tier 1 of the Customer Rebate
Program to lower the percentage threshold from 0.00%-0.75% to 0.00%-
0.45%. The Exchange believes that lowering the percentage threshold in
Tier 1 will continue to encourage market participants to direct a
greater number of Customer orders to the Exchange to qualify for the
rebate.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt a new Tier 2 Customer rebate with a
percentage threshold of above 0.45%-1.00% and offer a Category A rebate
of $0.11 per contract and a Category B rebate of $0.17 per contract.
The Exchange believes that this new tier will continue to encourage
market participants to direct a greater number of Customer orders to
the Exchange to qualify for the rebate.
    The Exchange proposes to amend the current Tier 2 rebate by
renaming it ``Tier 3'' and amending the percentage threshold from above
0.75%-1.60% to above 1.00%-1.60%. The Exchange is increasing this
rebate tier to account for the new Tier 2 rebate.
    The Exchange proposes to rename current Tier 3 as Tier 4 and
current Tier 4 as Tier 5 to account for the new rebate tier that is
being proposed.
    The Exchange proposes to amend rule text related to a current
rebate which was recently added in November 2013.\9\ In that filing the
Exchange amended the Pricing Schedule at Section B to offer a
Specialist or Market Maker, or its affiliate under Common
Ownership,\10\ provided the Specialist or Market Maker has reached the
Monthly Market Maker Cap \11\ as defined in Section II, an additional
$0.02 per contract rebate in addition to the applicable Tier 2 rebate
if they qualified for the Tier 2 rebate (``$0.02 Rebate''). The
Exchange is proposing to amend the rule text to continue to refer to
the current Tier 2 rebate which the Exchange is proposing to rename
Tier 3. The rule text will be amended to also reflect the change to
Tier 3 with respect to the ``$0.02 Rebate.'' Further, the Exchange
proposes to clarify the rule text by noting that the reference to
``affiliate'' with respect to the ``$0.02 Rebate is to a member or
member organization affiliate. This relates back to the definition of
Common Ownership which means members or member organizations under 75%
common ownership or control.\12\ The Exchange is proposing to add the
words ``member or member organization'' before ``affiliate'' to make
clear that the affiliate must be a member or member organization of
Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70969 (December 3,
2013), 78 FR 73907 (December 9, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-114).
    \10\ The term ``Common Ownership'' means members or member
organizations under 75% common ownership or control.
    \11\ Specialists and Market Makers are subject to a ``Monthly
Market Maker Cap'' of $550,000 for: (i) Electronic and floor Option
Transaction Charges; (ii) QCC Transaction Fees (as defined in
Exchange Rule 1080(o) and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in 1064(e));
and (iii) fees related to an order or quote that is contra to a PIXL
Order or specifically responding to a PIXL auction. The trading
activity of separate Specialist and Market Maker member
organizations is aggregated in calculating the Monthly Market Maker
Cap if there is Common Ownership between the member organizations.
All dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion,
jelly roll and box spread strategy executions (as defined in this
Section II) are excluded from the Monthly Market Maker Cap. In
addition, Specialists or Market Makers that (i) are on the contra-
side of an electronically-delivered and executed Customer order; and
(ii) have reached the Monthly Market Maker Cap are assessed a $0.17
per contract fee.
    \12\ See the Preface of the Exchange's Pricing Schedule which
includes the definition of Common Ownership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Category A of Section B of the
Pricing Schedule to amend the following sentence: [i]n the instance
where member organizations qualify for Tier 3 or higher in the Customer
Rebate Program, Customer PIXL Orders that execute against a PIXL
Initiating Order are paid a rebate of $0.14 per contract.

The Exchange proposes to pay the $0.14 per contract rebate in the
instance where member organizations qualify for Tier 4 or higher in the
Customer Rebate Program. Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend
Category B of Section B of the Pricing Schedule to amend the following
sentence: [i]n the instance where member organizations qualify for Tier
3 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer Complex PIXL
Orders that execute against a Complex PIXL Initiating Order will be
paid a rebate of $0.17 per contract. The Exchange proposes to pay the
$0.17 per contract rebate in the instance where member organizations
qualify for Tier 4 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program. The
Exchange added a new Tier 2 rebate to the Customer Rebate Program and
is proposing to apply the higher rebates to the newly renamed Tier 4
rebate at this time to incentivize market participants to add a greater
amount of Customer volume.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\13\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which the Exchange operates or controls, and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to lower the Tier 1 percentage threshold
from 0.00% -0.75% to 0.00%-0.45% is reasonable because the Exchange is
proposing to adopt a Tier 2 rebate for volume between 0.45%-1.00%.
Members that currently qualify for a non-paying Tier 1 rebate by
transacting greater than 0.75% of national customer volume in multiply
listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY) may qualify for the newly
added Tier 2 rebate, which pays a Category A rebate of $0.11 per
contract and a Category B rebate of $0.17 per contract, by transacting
greater than 0.45% of national customer volume in multiply listed
equity and ETF options (excluding SPY). The Exchange believes that the
new Tier 2 will offer members an opportunity to earn a Customer rebate
because the volume threshold is lower with new Tier 2 than with current
Tier 1.
    The Exchange's proposal to lower the Tier 1 percentage threshold
from 0.00% -0.75% to 0.00%-0.45% is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be applied to all market participants in
a uniform matter. Any market participant is eligible to receive the
rebate provided they transact a qualifying amount of electronic
Customer volume.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt a Tier 2 rebate of above 0.45%-
1.00% is reasonable because, as stated above, members that today do not
earn a Customer Rebate in current Tier 1 may be able to qualify for the
new Tier 2 rebate. Some members that currently qualify for the current
Tier 2 (0.75%-1.60%) rebate would receive a lower Category A rebate as
the new Tier 2 rebate pays a Category A rebate of $0.11 per contract
and the current Tier 2 Category A rebate is $0.12 per contract. The
Category B rebate is $0.17 per contract in both the current and
proposed Tier 2. However, the volume requirement for the new Tier 2
rebate (0.45%-1.00%) is lower than the current Tier 2 rebate (0.75%-
1.60%). The Exchange believes that despite the lower Category A rebate,
the new Tier 2 will continue to encourage members to transact Customer
orders on Phlx. Certain members that currently qualify for the current
Tier 2 rebate will need to transact above 1.00% of national customer
volume in multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY) to
continue to receive the higher Category A rebate of $0.12 per contract.
In addition Specialists and Market Makers that currently qualify for
the $0.02 Rebate will need to transact the increased volume of at least
1.00% of national customer volume in multiply listed equity and ETF
options (excluding SPY) to qualify for the $0.02 Rebate. The Exchange
believes that members will be encouraged to transact a greater number
of Customer contracts to receive higher rebates, despite the reduced
Category A rebate with the new Tier 2.
    The Exchange's proposal to adopt a new Tier 2 rebate of above
0.45%-1.00% is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it
will be applied to all market participants in a uniform matter. Any
market participant is eligible to receive the rebate provided they
transact a qualifying amount of electronic Customer volume.
    The Exchange's proposal to increase the current Tier 3 rebate from
above 0.75%-1.60% to above 1.00%-1.60% is reasonable because it should
incentivize members to direct a greater number of Customer orders to
the Exchange to qualify for the newly named Tier 3 rebate. As explained
above, certain members that currently qualify for the current Tier 2
rebate will need to transact above 1.00% of national customer volume in
multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY) to continue to
receive the higher Category A rebate of $0.12 per contract.\15\ The
Exchange believes that members will be encouraged to transact a greater
number of Customer contracts to receive the higher Category A rebate in
newly named Tier 3. In addition Specialists and Market Makers that
currently qualify for the $0.02 Rebate will need to transact the
increased volume of at least 1.00% of national customer volume in
multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding SPY) to qualify for
the $0.02 Rebate. This should also incentivize Specialists and Market
Makers to transact a greater number of Customer orders on the Exchange.
Phlx offers members certain Customer rebates to encourage Phlx member
organizations to direct Customer order flow to the Exchange, and the
$0.02 Rebate provides an additional incentive for Customer order flow.
Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more
trading opportunities, which attract Specialists and Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Category B rebate is $0.17 per contract with new Tier 2
and newly named Tier 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the current Tier 3 rebate from
above 0.75%-1.60% to above 1.00%-1.60% is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be applied to all market participants in
a uniform matter. All members are eligible to receive the rebate
provided they submit a qualifying number of electronic Customer volume.
    The Exchange's proposal to renumber the Customer Rebate Tiers to
accommodate the new Tier 2 is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to clarify the Pricing Schedule.
    The Exchange's proposal to add the words ``member or member
organization'' before ``affiliate'' is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the addition of these words further
clarifies the intent of the $0.02 Rebate to apply to affiliates that
are members or member organizations of the Exchange. The proposed
amendment is not substantive as this is the manner in which the Common
Ownership is applied today.
    The Exchange's proposal to replace Tier 3 with Tier 4 in order to
receive the

higher Category A rebate of $0.14 per contract or the higher Category B
rebate of $0.17 per contract in the instance where member organizations
qualify for Tier 3 or higher in the Customer Rebate Program, Customer
PIXL Orders that execute against a PIXL Initiating Order or member
organizations qualify for Tier 3 or higher in the Customer Rebate
Program, Customer Complex PIXL Orders that execute against a Complex
PIXL Initiating Order, respectively, is reasonable to encourage market
participants to add a greater amount of Customer volume on Phlx. The
Exchange believes that members will be encouraged to transact a greater
amount of Customer volume to obtain the higher rebates.
    The Exchange believes that replacing Tier 3 with Tier 4 in order to
receive the higher Category A rebate of $0.14 per contract or the
higher Category B rebate of $0.17 is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange will pay rebates to all market
participants in a uniform manner provided they meet the requirements to
obtain the higher rebate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose an undue burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
Customer Rebate Program will continue to encourage Customer order flow
to be directed to the Exchange. By incentivizing members to route
Customer orders, the Exchange desires to attract liquidity to the
Exchange, which in turn benefits all market participants. Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attract Specialists and Market Makers. An increase
in the activity of these market participants in turn facilitates
tighter spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase
in order flow from other market participants. All market participants
are eligible to qualify for a Customer Rebate.
    The Exchange believes the proposed amendments would allow market
participants to qualify for the new Tier 2 rebate and possibly higher
rebates if they direct a qualifying number of Customer orders to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes this pricing amendment does not impose
a burden on competition but rather that the proposed rule change will
continue to promote competition on the Exchange. A market participant
requires less Customer volume with this proposal to earn a Customer
rebate. The current Tier 2 rebate requires above 0.75% of national
customer volume in multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding
SPY) while the new Tier 2 rebate requires above 0.45% of national
customer volume in multiply listed equity and ETF options (excluding
SPY). While some participants will be required to transact a greater
number of Customer orders to continue to earn the newly named Tier 3
Category A rebate, the Exchange believes that members will be
encouraged to transact a greater number of Customer contracts to
receive the higher rebate, which will promote competition.
    In addition Specialists and Market Makers that currently qualify
for the $0.02 Rebate will need to transact the increased volume of at
least 1.00% of national customer volume in multiply listed equity and
ETF options (excluding SPY) to qualify for the $0.02 Rebate. This
proposal should incentivize Specialists and Market Makers to transact a
greater number of Customer orders on the Exchange to achieve the $0.02
Rebate and therefore would not create an undue burden on competition,
but would instead encourage competition.
    The Exchange believes that replacing Tier 3 with Tier 4 in order to
receive the higher Category A rebate of $0.14 per contract or the
higher Category B rebate of $0.17 does not impose an undue burden on
competition because the Exchange will pay the higher rebate to all
market participants that qualify for the rebate and the rebate is
intended to promote competition by encouraging market participants to
transact a greater number of Customer orders.
    The remainder of the proposed amendments are clarifying and would
not impose an undue burden on competition.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
twelve options exchanges, in which market participants can easily and
readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels
at a particular venue to be excessive or rebates to be inadequate.
Accordingly, the fees that are assessed and the rebates paid by the
Exchange described in the above proposal are influenced by these robust
market forces and therefore must remain competitive with fees charged
and rebates paid by other venues and therefore must continue to be
reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to direct
orders to the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend 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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-03 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 Number SR-Phlx-2014-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2014-03, and should be submitted on or before
February 4, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-00465 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 58396]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23822]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4466-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Texas; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-4466-DR), dated October 4, 2019,
and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 4, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 4, 2019, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Texas resulting from Tropical Storm Imelda during the period of
September 17 to September 23, 2019, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the State of Texas.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation and Other Needs Assistance under section 408 will
be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jerry S. Thomas, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Texas have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Chambers, Harris, Jefferson, Liberty, Montgomery, and Orange
Counties for Individual Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Texas are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-23822 Filed 10-30-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 85-86]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-525-000]

UGI Sunbury, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Sunbury Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the
Sunbury Pipeline Project (Project), proposed by UGI Sunbury, LLC
(Sunbury) in the above referenced docket. Sunbury requests
authorization to construct and operate a natural gas pipeline facility
in Snyder, Union, Northumberland, Montour and Lycoming Counties,
Pennsylvania. The Project would provide 180,000 dekatherms of natural
gas per day to the Hummel Station Generation Facility in Snyder County,
Pennsylvania.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the proposed Project in accordance with
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The
FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with
appropriate mitigating measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and The Pennsylvania
Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) participated as cooperating agencies in
the preparation of the EA. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by
law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected
by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis.
    Sunbury proposes to: Construct and operate a 34.4-mile-long
pipeline from the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company LLC (Transco)
and MARC I Pipeline operated by Central New York Oil & Gas Company, LLC
(CNYOG), both in Lycoming County, to the proposed Hummel Station
Generation Facility.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes;
potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and
groups; newspapers and libraries in the project area; and parties to
this proceeding. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on
the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
8371.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this Project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before January
27, 2016.
    For your convenience, there are three methods in which you can use
to file your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please
reference the project docket numbers (CP15-525-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You may also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\1\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
525). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission 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 www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

    Dated: December 28, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33032 Filed 12-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P