[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39752-39757]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16376]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67297; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-063]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Applicable to a New Version of the NASDAQ TotalView-ITCH Equities Depth
Feed and Related Distributor and Administration Fees

June 28, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 15, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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 Nasdaq.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to establish fees for a new optional delivery
mechanism for Nasdaq Depth data (defined below). Specifically, Nasdaq
proposes to establish Distributor and Administration fees for a
hardware-based version of Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH data and is not
offering a new market data product.
    The text of the proposed rule change is below. Proposed new
language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Changes are marked to the rule text that appears in the
electronic Nasdaq Manual found at http://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

7026. Distribution Models

    (a)-(b) No change.
    (c) [Reserved] Hardware-Based Delivery of Nasdaq Depth data
    (1) The charges to be paid by Distributors for processing Nasdaq
Depth data sourced from a Nasdaq hardware-based market data format
shall be:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq depth
                    data                                                 Monthly fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Only Distributor..................  $25,000 per Distributor.
External Only Distributor..................  $2,500 per Distributor.
Internal and External Distributor..........  $27,500 per Distributor.
Managed Data Solution Administration Fee...  $3,000 = 1 Subscriber.
                                             $3,500 = 2 Subscribers.
                                             $4,000 = 3 Subscribers.
                                             $500 for each additional Subscriber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) ``Hardware-Based Delivery'' means that a distributor is
processing data sourced from a Nasdaq hardware coded market data
format such as TotalView-ITCH FPGA.
    (3) Distributors of Nasdaq Depth data also are subject to the
market data fees as set forth in this rule, Nasdaq Rule 7019(b) and
Nasdaq Rule 7023.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq is proposing to amend Nasdaq Rule 7026 (Distribution Models)
to establish Distributor and Administration fees for an optional
hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq Depth-of-Book data, defined in Nasdaq
Rule 7023 to include TotalView, OpenView, and NASDAQ Level 2
(collectively, ``Nasdaq Depth data''). This new delivery option of the
Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH equities depth feed uses field-programmable gate
array (``FPGA'') technology. In offering a hardware-delivery mechanism,
Nasdaq is serving those customers requiring a predictable latency
profile throughout the trading day. By taking advantage of hardware
parallelism, FPGA technology is capable of processing more data packets
during peak market conditions without the introduction of variable
queuing latency.
    The proposed Distributor fee for utilizing the optional hardware-
based delivery of Nasdaq Depth data is $25,000 for internal only
distribution, $2,500 for external only distribution and $27,500 for
internal and external distribution. The optional Managed Data Solution
(``MDS'') Administration fee is tiered based upon the number of
subscribers, starting at $3,000 as outlined above. There will be no
change in Nasdaq Depth data subscriber fees as a result of these other
fee changes.
    This new pricing option is available to all firms, regardless of
how they choose to access the hardware-based version of Nasdaq Depth
data, and is in response to industry demand, as well as due to changes
in the technology to distribute and consume market data. Distributors
opting to pay for the hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq Depth data
would still be fee liable for the applicable market data fees, as
described in Nasdaq Rule 7026, Nasdaq Rule 7019(b) and Nasdaq Rule
7023.
    Competition for depth data is considerable and the Exchange
believes that this proposal clearly evidences such competition. The
Exchange is offering a new pricing model in order to keep pace with
changes in the industry and evolving customer needs as new technologies
emerge and products continue to develop and change. It is entirely
optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as well as
retaining existing customers.
    The proposed fees are based on pricing conventions and distinctions
that exist in Nasdaq's current fee schedule, and the fee schedules of
other exchanges. These distinctions (e.g., internal versus external
distribution, as well as for MDS) for the proposed optional Distributor
and Administration fees for hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq Depth
data are based on a careful analysis of empirical data and the
application of time-tested pricing principles already accepted by the
Commission and discussed in greater depth in the Statutory Basis
section below. Also, the costs associated with the hardware-based
delivery system for Nasdaq Depth data are higher than a software-based
solution since it involves the expense of hiring personnel to create
and maintain the product, as well as creating, shipping, installing and
maintaining the new equipment and codebase. Because it uses a distinct
technology, the overall costs of creation and maintenance of the
hardware-based version of TotalView-ITCH are higher than the software-
based version. From a messaging perspective, the data content and
sequencing will be identical on both the hardware- and software-based
versions of the TotalView-ITCH product.
    The proposed hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq Depth data is
completely optional. Nasdaq is offering this new delivery mechanism for
the Nasdaq TotalView-ITCH product, which uses FPGA technology, and is
designed to deliver Nasdaq direct data content in a predictable manner
throughout the trading day.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\4\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides an equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among users and recipients of Nasdaq
data. In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-
regulatory organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and
flexibility to offer new and unique market data to the public. It was
believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available
to consumers, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal
analysis of the need for such data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70
FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS

advanced the goals of the Act and the principles reflected in its
legislative history. If the free market should determine whether
proprietary data is sold to broker-dealers at all, it follows that the
price at which such data is sold should be set by the market as well.
Nasdaq Depth data is precisely the sort of market data product that the
Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.
    On July 21, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 4173,
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
(``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among other
things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A) of
Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Exchange Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-
day period beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule
change in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section
19(b)], the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in
the rules of the self-regulatory organization made thereby, 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 this title. If the Commission takes
such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph
(2)(B) [of Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should
be approved or disapproved.''
    Nasdaq believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act
reflect Congress' intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the
forces of competition to ensure that fees for market data are
reasonable and equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly
authorized immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a
policy and subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other
products available to persons that are not members of the self-
regulatory organization must be approved by the Commission after first
being published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. Nasdaq
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress' conclusion
that the evolution of self-regulatory organization governance and
competitive market structure have rendered the Commission's prior
policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically, many exchanges have
evolved from member-owned not-for-profit corporations into for-profit
investor-owned corporations (or subsidiaries of investor-owned
corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no longer have narrow incentives
to manage their affairs for the exclusive benefit of their members, but
rather have incentives to maximize the appeal of their products to all
customers, whether members or non-members, so as to broaden
distribution and grow revenues. Moreover, we believe that the change
also reflects an endorsement of the Commission's determinations that
reliance on competitive markets is an appropriate means to ensure
equitable and reasonable prices. Simply put, the change reflects a
presumption that all fee changes should be permitted to take effect
immediately, since the level of all fees are constrained by competitive
forces.
    The decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton v. SEC, No. 09-1042 (D.C. Cir.
2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior to the
effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's reliance
upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably allocated fees
for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history indicates that the
Congress intended that the market system `evolve through the interplay
of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory restrictions are
removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power `in those
situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as in the
creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'
NetCoaltion, at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at 92 (1975), as
reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323). The court's conclusions about
Congressional intent are therefore reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act
amendments, which create a presumption that exchange fees, including
market data fees, may take effect immediately, without prior Commission
approval, and that the Commission should take action to suspend a fee
change and institute a proceeding to determine whether the fee change
should be approved or disapproved only where the Commission has
concerns that the change may not be consistent with the Act.
    For the reasons stated above, Nasdaq believes that the proposed
fees are fair and equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. As
described above, the proposed fees are based on pricing conventions and
distinctions that exist in Nasdaq's current fee schedule, and the fee
schedules of other exchanges. These distinctions (e.g., internal versus
external distribution and hardware-based versus software-based system
for delivering Nasdaq Depth data) are based on principles of fairness
and equity that have helped for many years to maintain fair, equitable,
and not unreasonably discriminatory fees, and that apply with equal or
greater force to the current proposal. The Distributor and
Administration fees for the optional hardware-based delivery of Nasdaq
Depth data are based on careful analysis of empirical data and the
application of time-tested pricing principles already accepted by the
Commission for many years.
    As described in greater detail below, if Nasdaq has calculated
improperly and the market deems the proposed fees to be unfair,
inequitable, or unreasonably discriminatory, firms can diminish or
discontinue the use of their data because the proposed fee is entirely
optional to all parties. Firms are not required to purchase Nasdaq
Depth data or to utilize any specific pricing alternative if they do
choose to purchase Nasdaq Depth data. Nasdaq is not required to make
depth data available or to offer specific pricing alternatives for
potential purchases. Nasdaq can discontinue offering a pricing
alternative (as it has in the past) and firms can discontinue their use
at any time and for any reason (as they often do), including due to
their assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. Nasdaq
continues to create new pricing policies aimed at increasing fairness
and equitable allocation of fees among users, and Nasdaq believes this
is another useful step in that direction.

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not

necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as
amended. Notwithstanding its determination that the Commission may rely
upon competition to establish fair and equitably allocated fees for
market data, the NetCoaltion court found that the Commission had not,
in that case, compiled a record that adequately supported its
conclusion that the market for the data at issue in the case was
competitive. For the reasons discussed above, Nasdaq believes that the
Dodd-Frank Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of
the Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the
absence of this important statutory change, however, Nasdaq believes
that a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive
nature of the market in question.
    There is intense competition between trading platforms that provide
transaction execution and routing services and proprietary data
products. Transaction execution and proprietary data products are
complementary in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of
the execution service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a
paradigmatic example of joint products with joint costs. The decision
whether and on which platform to post an order will depend on the
attributes of the platform where the order can be posted, including the
execution fees, data quality and price and distribution of its data
products. Without the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to
a posted order on a particular platform, the posting of the order would
accomplish little. Without trade executions, exchange data products
cannot exist. Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar
as they provide information that end users expect will assist them or
their customers in making trading decisions.
    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and to maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decreases, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable.
    Thus, a super-competitive increase in the fees charged for either
transactions or data has the potential to impair revenues from both
products. ``No one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce'.'' NetCoalition at 24. However, the existence of fierce
competition for order flow implies a high degree of price sensitivity
on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they may readily
reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost trading venues.
A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one platform to
another in response to order execution price differentials would both
reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce its own need
to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly, if a platform
increases its market data fees, the change will affect the overall cost
of doing business with the platform, and affected broker-dealers will
assess whether they can lower their trading costs by directing orders
elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the more expensive data.
    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platform may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering. This would be akin to strictly
regulating the price that an automobile manufacturer can charge for car
sound systems despite the existence of a highly competitive market for
cars and the availability of after-market alternatives to the
manufacturer-supplied system.
    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including ten self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized

transaction reports. Competitive markets for order flow, executions,
and transaction reports provide pricing discipline for the inputs of
proprietary data products.
    The large number of SROs, TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently
produce proprietary data or are currently capable of producing it
provides further pricing discipline for proprietary data products. Each
SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently permitted to produce proprietary
data products, and many currently do or have announced plans to do so,
including Nasdaq, NYSE, NYSE Amex, NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless.
    The fact that proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-
pass SROs is significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete
directly with SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data
products, as BATS and Arca did before registering as exchanges by
publishing proprietary book data on the Internet. Second, because a
single order or transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary
product, a non-SRO proprietary product, or both, the data available in
proprietary products is exponentially greater than the actual number of
orders and transaction reports that exist in the marketplace.
    Market data vendors provide another form of price discipline for
proprietary data products because they control the primary means of
access to end users. Vendors impose price restraints based upon their
business models. For example, vendors such as Bloomberg and Thomson
Reuters that assess a surcharge on data they sell may refuse to offer
proprietary products that end users will not purchase in sufficient
numbers. Internet portals, such as Google, impose a discipline by
providing only data that will enable them to attract ``eyeballs'' that
contribute to their advertising revenue. Retail broker-dealers, such as
Schwab and Fidelity, offer their customers proprietary data only if it
promotes trading and generates sufficient commission revenue. Although
the business models may differ, these vendors' pricing discipline is
the same: They can simply refuse to purchase any proprietary data
product that fails to provide sufficient value. Nasdaq and other
producers of proprietary data products must understand and respond to
these varying business models and pricing disciplines in order to
market proprietary data products successfully.
    In addition to the competition and price discipline described
above, the market for proprietary data products is also highly
contestable because market entry is rapid, inexpensive, and profitable.
The history of electronic trading is replete with examples of entrants
that swiftly grew into some of the largest electronic trading platforms
and proprietary data producers: Archipelago, Bloomberg Tradebook,
Island, RediBook, Attain, TracECN, BATS Trading and Direct Edge. A
proliferation of dark pools and other ATSs operate profitably with
fragmentary shares of consolidated market volume.
    Regulation NMS, by deregulating the market for proprietary data,
has increased the contestability of that market. While broker-dealers
have previously published their proprietary data individually,
Regulation NMS encourages market data vendors and broker-dealers to
produce proprietary products cooperatively in a manner never before
possible. Multiple market data vendors already have the capability to
aggregate data and disseminate it on a profitable scale, including
Bloomberg, and Thomson Reuters.
    The court in NetCoalition concluded that the Commission had failed
to demonstrate that the market for market data was competitive based on
the reasoning of the Commission's NetCoalition order because, in the
court's view, the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the
depth-of-book data at issue in the case is used to attract order flow.
Nasdaq believes, however, that evidence not before the court clearly
demonstrates that availability of data attracts order flow. For
example, as of July 2010, 92 of the top 100 broker-dealers by shares
executed on Nasdaq consumed Level 2/NQDS and 80 of the top 100 broker-
dealers consumed TotalView. During that month, the Level 2/NQDS-users
were responsible for 94.44% of the orders entered into Nasdaq and
TotalView users were responsible for 92.98%.
    Competition among platforms has driven Nasdaq continually to
improve its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data
needs. For example, Nasdaq has developed and maintained multiple
delivery mechanisms (IP, multi-cast, and compression) that enable
customers to receive data in the form and manner they prefer and at the
lowest cost to them. Nasdaq offers front end applications such as its
``Bookviewer'' to help customers utilize data. Nasdaq has created new
products like TotalView Aggregate to complement TotalView ITCH and
Level 2/NQDS, because offering data in multiple formatting allows
Nasdaq to better fit customer needs. Nasdaq offers data via multiple
extranet providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost
for its data products. Nasdaq has developed an online administrative
system to provide customers transparency into their data feed requests
and streamline data usage reporting. Nasdaq has also expanded its
Enterprise License options that reduce the administrative burden and
costs to firms that purchase market data.
    Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in message
traffic, Nasdaq's fees for market data have remained flat. In fact, as
a percent of total customer costs, Nasdaq data fees have fallen
relative to other data usage costs--including bandwidth, programming,
and infrastructure--that have risen. The same holds true for execution
services; despite numerous enhancements to Nasdaq's trading platform,
absolute and relative trading costs have declined. Platform competition
has intensified as new entrants have emerged, constraining prices for
both executions and for data.
    The vigor of competition for depth information is significant and
the Exchange believes that this proposal clearly evidences such
competition. Nasdaq is offering a new pricing model in order to keep
pace with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs. It is
entirely optional and is geared towards attracting new customers, as
well as retaining existing customers.
    The Exchange has witnessed competitors creating new products and
innovative pricing in this space over the course of the past year.
Nasdaq continues to see firms challenge its pricing on the basis of the
Exchange's explicit fees being higher than the zero-priced fees from
other competitors such as BATS. In all cases, firms make decisions on
how much and what types of data to consume on the basis of the total
cost of interacting with Nasdaq or other exchanges. Of course, the
explicit data fees are but one factor in a total platform analysis.
Some competitors have lower transactions fees and higher data fees, and
others are vice versa. The market for this depth information is highly
competitive and continually evolves as products develop and change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) 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.

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-NASDAQ-2012-063 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-NASDAQ-2012-063. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices 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-NASDAQ-2012-063, and should
be submitted on or before July 26, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-16376 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15336-15343]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07231]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0604; A-1-FRL-9976-36--Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Infrastructure Requirement for the
2010 Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the remaining portion of a November 2, 2015 State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Vermont.
This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), referred to as the good neighbor provision, with
respect to the primary 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). This action proposes to approve
Vermont's demonstration that the State is meeting its obligations
regarding the transport of SO2 emissions into other states.
This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 10, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2014-0604 at www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly available
docket materials are available at www.regulations.gov or at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Dahl, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is
provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. State Submittal
III. Summary of the Proposed Action
IV. Section 110(A)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport
    A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants
    B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements
of the 2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Vermont
V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2 Emissions
    A. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to SO2
Nonattainment
    1. Impact on the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area
    2. SO2 Emissions Trends
    3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
    4. Federally Enforceable Regulations Specific to SO2
and Permitting Requirements
    5. Conclusion
    B. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the NAAQS
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 22, 2010 (75 FR 35520), EPA promulgated a revised primary
NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new

or revised NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe.\1\ These SIPs, which EPA has historically referred to as
``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS, and the requirements are
designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air
quality management program are adequate to meet the state's
responsibilities under the CAA. A detailed history, interpretation, and
rationale of these SIPs and their requirements can be found in, among
other documents, EPA's May 13, 2014 proposed rule titled,
``Infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS,'' in the
section ``What is the scope of this rulemaking?'' (see 79 FR 27241 at
27242-27245). As noted above, section 110(a) of the CAA imposes an
obligation upon states to submit to EPA a SIP submission for a new or
revised NAAQS. The content of individual state submissions may vary
depending upon the facts and circumstances, and may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state's approved SIP already contains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This requirement applies to both primary and secondary
NAAQS, but EPA's approval in this document applies only to the 2010
primary NAAQS for SO2 because EPA did not establish in
2010 a new secondary NAAQS for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 2, 2015, the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VT DEC) submitted proposed revisions to its SIP,
certifying that its SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of
the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010
SO2 primary NAAQS. On June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29005), EPA
approved VT DEC's certification that its SIP was adequate to meet most
of the program elements required by section 110(a)(2) of the CAA with
respect to the 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2, and 2010 SO2
NAAQS. EPA conditionally approved the State's submission in relation to
subsections (C), (D), and (J) of CAA section 110(a)(2) in relation to
the prevention of significant deterioration permit program.
    However, at that time, EPA did not take action on VT DEC's
certification that its SIP met the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS. EPA is
now proposing to approve VT DEC's November 2, 2015 certification that
its SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), for
purposes of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.

II. State Submittal

    Vermont presented several facts in its SIP submission on the effect
of SO2 emissions from sources within Vermont on downwind and
neighboring states' SO2 nonattainment areas and those
states' ability to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The SIP
submission notes statewide SO2 emissions from point sources
in 2011 were less than 500 tons total. Vermont also included two data
points regarding ambient monitoring data in its November 2015
submittal. First, the design value from an instate monitor in Rutland
for the period 2012-2014 was 13 ppb, which is only 17% of the 2010
SO2 standard. Vermont also stated the most recent design
value (2013) for the central New Hampshire nonattainment area was 23
ppb. Finally, Vermont states in its SIP submission that ``[n]o source
or sources within Vermont have been identified as contributing
significantly to nonattainment in any other state or are the subject of
an active finding under section 126 of the CAA with respect to
SO2 or any other air pollutant.''

III. Summary of the Proposed Action

    This proposed approval of Vermont's November 2, 2015 SIP submission
addressing interstate transport of SO2 is intended to show
that the State is meeting its obligations regarding CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relative to the primary 2010 SO2
NAAQS.\2\ Interstate transport requirements for all NAAQS pollutants
prohibit any source, or other type of emissions activity, in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. As part of this analysis, and as explained in
detail below, EPA has taken several approaches to addressing interstate
transport in other actions based on the characteristics of the
pollutant, the interstate problem presented by emissions of that
pollutant, the sources that emit the pollutant, and the information
available to assess transport of that pollutant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This proposed approval of Vermont's SIP submission under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is based on the information contained in
the administrative record for this action, and does not prejudge any
other future EPA action that may make other determinations regarding
Vermont's air quality status. Any such future actions, such as area
designations under any NAAQS, will be based on their own
administrative records and EPA's analyses of information that
becomes available at those times. Future available information may
include, and is not limited to, monitoring data and modeling
analyses conducted pursuant to EPA's Data Requirements Rule (80 FR
51052, August 21, 2015) and information submitted to EPA by states,
air agencies, and third-party stakeholders such as citizen groups
and industry representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite being emitted from a similar universe of point and nonpoint
sources, interstate transport of SO2 is unlike the transport
of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) or ozone that EPA has
addressed in other actions, in that SO2 is not a regional
mixing pollutant that commonly contributes to widespread nonattainment
of the SO2 NAAQS over a large, multi-state area. While in
certain respects transport of SO2 is more analogous to the
transport of lead (Pb) because SO2's and Pb's physical
properties result in localized impacts very near the emissions source,
in another respect the physical properties and release height of
SO2 are such that impacts of SO2 do not
experience the same sharp decrease in ambient concentrations as rapidly
and as nearby as they do for Pb. While emissions of SO2
travel farther and have sufficiently wider-ranging impacts than
emissions of Pb such that it is reasonable to require a different
approach for assessing SO2 transport than assessing Pb
transport, the differences are not significant enough to treat
SO2 in a manner similar to the way in which EPA treats and
analyzes regional transport pollutants such as ozone or
PM2.5.
    Put simply, a different approach is needed for interstate transport
of SO2 than the approach used for the other pollutants
identified above: The approaches EPA has adopted for Pb transport are
too tightly circumscribed to the source, and the approaches for ozone
or PM2.5 transport are too regionally focused.
SO2 transport is therefore a unique case, and EPA's
evaluation of whether Vermont has met is transport obligations in
relation to SO2 was accomplished in several discrete steps.
    First, EPA evaluated the universe of sources in Vermont likely to
be responsible for SO2 emissions that could contribute to
interstate transport. An assessment of the 2014 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI) for Vermont made it clear that the vast majority of
SO2 emissions in Vermont are from fuel combustion at point
and nonpoint sources,\3\ and therefore it would be reasonable to
evaluate the downwind impacts of emissions from these two fuel
combustion source categories, combined, in order to help determine
whether the State has met is transport obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See EPA's web page, www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei, for a description of what types of
sources of air emissions are considered point and nonpoint sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, EPA selected a spatial scale--essentially, the geographic
area and distance around the point sources in which we could reasonably
expect SO2 impacts to occur--that would be

appropriate for its analysis, ultimately settling on utilizing an
``urban scale'' with dimensions from 4 to 50 kilometers from point and
nonpoint sources, given the usefulness of that range in assessing
trends in both area-wide air quality and the effectiveness of large-
scale pollution control strategies. As such, EPA utilized an assessment
up to 50 kilometers from fuel-combustion sources in order to assess
trends in area-wide air quality that might have an impact on the
transport of SO2 from Vermont to downwind states.
    Third, EPA assessed all available data at the time of this
rulemaking regarding SO2 emissions in Vermont and their
possible impacts in downwind states, including: (1) SO2
ambient air quality; (2) SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; (3) SIP-approved SO2 regulations and
permitting requirements; and (4) other SIP-approved or federally-
promulgated regulations which may yield reductions of SO2 at
Vermont's fuel-combustion point and nonpoint sources.
    Fourth, using the universe of information identified in steps 1-3
(i.e., emissions sources, spatial scale and available data, and
enforceable regulations), EPA then conducted an analysis under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to evaluate whether or not fuel-combustion
sources in Vermont would significantly contribute to SO2
nonattainment in other states, and then whether emissions from those
sources would interfere with maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS in
other states.
    Based on the analysis provided by the State in its November 2, 2015
SIP submission and EPA's assessment of the information discussed at
length below, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within Vermont will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, nor will they interfere with maintenance of the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--Interstate Transport

A. General Requirements and Historical Approaches for Criteria
Pollutants

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to include provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, of the
NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this section are referred to
as prong 1 (significant contribution to nonattainment) and prong 2
(interference with maintenance of the NAAQS).
    EPA's most recent infrastructure SIP guidance, the September 13,
2013 ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),'' did
not explicitly include criteria for how the Agency would evaluate
infrastructure SIP submissions intended to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\4\ With respect to certain pollutants, such as
ozone and particulate matter, EPA has addressed interstate transport in
eastern states in the context of regional rulemaking actions that
quantify state emission reduction obligations.\5\ In other actions,
such as EPA action on western state SIPs addressing ozone and
particulate matter, EPA has considered a variety of factors on a case-
by-case basis to determine whether emissions from one state interfere
with the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in another state. In
such actions, EPA has considered available information such as current
air quality, emissions data and trends, meteorology, and topography.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ At the time the September 13, 2013 guidance was issued, EPA
was litigating challenges raised with respect to its Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (``CSAPR''), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011), designed
to address the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate transport
requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. CSAPR was vacated and remanded by the D.C.
Circuit in 2012 pursuant to EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA,
696 F.3d 7. EPA subsequently sought review of the D.C. Circuit's
decision by the Supreme Court, which was granted in June 2013. As
EPA was in the process of litigating the interpretation of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at the time the infrastructure SIP guidance was
issued, EPA did not issue guidance specific to that provision. The
Supreme Court subsequently vacated the D.C. Circuit's decision and
remanded the case to that court for further review. 134 S.Ct. 1584
(2014). On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
upholding CSAPR, but remanding certain elements for reconsideration.
795 F.3d 118.
    \5\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); CSAPR,
76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \6\ See, e.g., Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; State of California; Interstate Transport of Pollution;
Significant Contribution to Nonattainment and Interference With
Maintenance Requirements, Proposed Rule, 76 FR 146516, 14616-14626
(March 17, 2011); Final Rule, 76 FR 34872 (June 15, 2011); Approval
and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; State of Colorado;
Interstate Transport of Pollution for the 2006 24-Hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, Proposed Rule, 80 FR 27121, 27124-27125 (May
12, 2015); Final Rule, 80 FR 47862 (August 10, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For other pollutants such as Pb, EPA has suggested the applicable
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) can be
met through a state's assessment as to whether or not emissions from Pb
sources located in close proximity to its borders have emissions that
impact a neighboring state such that they contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in that state. For example,
EPA noted in an October 14, 2011 memorandum titled, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS,'' \7\ that the physical properties of
Pb prevent its emissions from experiencing the same travel or formation
phenomena as PM2.5 or ozone, and there is a sharp decrease
in Pb concentrations, at least in the coarse fraction, as the distance
from a Pb source increases. Accordingly, while it may be possible for a
source in a state to emit Pb in a location and in quantities that may
contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other state, EPA anticipates that this would be a
rare situation, e.g., where large sources are in close proximity to
state boundaries.\8\ Our rationale and explanation for approving the
applicable interstate transport requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 Pb NAAQS, consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the October 14, 2011 guidance document, can be found
in, among other instances, the proposed approval and a subsequent final
approval of interstate transport SIPs submitted by Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20111014_page_lead_caa_110_infrastructure_guidance.pdf.
    \8\ Id. at pp 7-8.
    \9\ See 79 FR 27241 at 27249 (May 13, 2014) and 79 FR 41439
(July 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Approach for Addressing the Interstate Transport Requirements of the
2010 Primary SO2 NAAQS in Vermont

    This document describes EPA's evaluation of Vermont's conclusion
contained in the State's November 2, 2015 infrastructure SIP submission
that the State satisfies the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA notes that the evaluation of other states' satisfaction
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS can
be informed by similar factors found in this proposed rulemaking,
but may not be identical to the approach taken in this or any future
rulemaking for Vermont, depending on available information and
state-specific circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires an
evaluation of any source or other type of emissions activity in one
state and how emissions from these sources or activities may impact air
quality in other states. As the analysis contained in Vermont's
submittal demonstrates, a state's obligation to demonstrate that it is
meeting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) cannot

be based solely on the fact that there are no data requirements rule
(DRR) sources within the state. Therefore, EPA believes that a
reasonable starting point for determining which sources and emissions
activities in Vermont are likely to impact downwind air quality with
respect to the SO2 NAAQS is by using information in the
NEI.\11\ The NEI is a comprehensive and detailed estimate of air
emissions of criteria pollutants, criteria precursors, and hazardous
air pollutants from air emissions sources, and is updated every three
years using information provided by the states. At the time of this
rulemaking, the most recently available dataset is the 2014 NEI, and
the state summary for Vermont is included in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory.

            Table 1--Summary of 2014 NEI SO2 Data for Vermont
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Emissions
                          Category                             (tons per
                                                                 year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Combustion: Electric Utilities.........................           2
Fuel Combustion: Industrial.................................         442
Fuel Combustion: Other......................................         891
Waste Disposal and Recycling................................          61
Highway Vehicles............................................          65
Off-Highway.................................................          30
Miscellaneous...............................................          10
                                                             -----------
  Total.....................................................       1,501
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA observes that according to the 2014 NEI, the vast majority
of SO2 emissions in Vermont originate from fuel combustion
at point and nonpoint sources. Therefore, an assessment of Vermont's
satisfaction of all applicable requirements under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS may
reasonably be based upon evaluating the downwind impacts of emissions
from the combined fuel combustion categories (i.e., electric utilities,
industrial processes, and other sources \12\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The ``other'' category of fuel combustion in Vermont is
comprised almost entirely of residential heating through fuel oil
and wood combustion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The definitions contained in Appendix D to 40 CFR part 58 are
helpful indicators of the travel and formation phenomenon for
SO2 originating from stationary sources in its
stoichiometric gaseous form in the context of the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS. Notably, section 4.4 of Appendix D titled,
``Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Design Criteria'' provides
definitions for SO2 Monitoring Spatial Scales for
microscale, middle scale, neighborhood, and urban scale monitors. The
microscale includes areas in close proximity to SO2 point
and area sources, and those areas extend approximately 100 meters from
a facility. The middle scale generally represents air quality levels in
areas 100 meters to 500 meters from a facility, and may include
locations of maximum expected short-term concentrations due to the
proximity of major SO2 point, area, and non-road sources.
The neighborhood scale characterizes air quality conditions between 0.5
kilometers and 4 kilometers from a facility, and emissions from
stationary and point sources may under certain plume conditions, result
in high SO2 concentrations at this scale. Lastly, the urban
scale is used to estimate concentrations over large portions of an
urban area with dimensions of 4 to 50 kilometers from a facility, and
such measurements would be useful for assessing trends and
concentrations in area-wide air quality, and hence, the effectiveness
of large-scale pollution control strategies. Based on these definitions
contained in EPA's own regulations, we believe that it is appropriate
to examine the impacts of emissions from electric utilities and
industrial processes in Vermont in distances ranging from 0 km to 50 km
from the facility. In other words, SO2 emissions from
stationary sources in the context of the 2010 primary NAAQS do not
exhibit the same long-distance travel, regional transport or formation
phenomena as either ozone or PM2.5, but rather, these
emissions behave more like Pb with localized dispersion. Therefore, an
assessment up to 50 kilometers from potential sources would be useful
for assessing trends and SO2 concentrations in area-wide air
quality.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ EPA recognizes in Appendix A.1 titled, ``AERMOD (AMS/EPA
Regulatory Model)--'' of Appendix W to 40 CFR part 51 that the model
is appropriate for predicting SO2 up to 50 kilometers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The largest category of SO2 emissions in Table 1 is for
``other'' fuel combustion sources. The majority of emissions in this
category is from residential fuel combustion (758 tons per year), or
50% of the total statewide SO2 emissions for 2014.
Residential homes combusting fuel are considered nonpoint sources. For
any state where the SO2 contribution from nonpoint sources
make up a majority of all statewide SO2 emissions, EPA
believes it is reasonable to evaluate any regulations intended to
address fuel oil, specifically with respect to the sulfur content in
order to determine interstate transport impacts from the category of
``other'' sources of fuel combustion.
    Our current implementation strategy for the 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS includes the flexibility to characterize air
quality for stationary sources via either data collected at ambient air
quality monitors sited to capture the points of maximum concentration,
or air dispersion modeling.\14\ Our assessment of SO2
emissions from fuel combustion categories in the State and their
potential impacts on neighboring states are informed by all available
data at the time of this rulemaking, and include: SO2
ambient air quality; SO2 emissions and SO2
emissions trends; SIP-approved SO2 regulations and
permitting requirements; and, other SIP-approved or federally
promulgated regulations which may yield reductions of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ https://www.epa.gov/so2-pollution/2010-1-hour-sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Interstate Transport Demonstration for SO2 Emissions

A. Prong 1 Analysis--Significant Contribution to SO2 Nonattainment

    Prong 1 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment
of a NAAQS in another state. In order to evaluate Vermont's
satisfaction of prong 1, EPA evaluated the State's SIP submission in
relation to the following five factors: (1) The impact on the Central
New Hampshire Nonattainment Area; (2) SO2 emission trends
for Vermont and neighboring states; (3) SO2 ambient air
quality data; (4) SIP-approved regulations specific to SO2
emissions and permit requirements; and (5) other SIP-approved or
federally-enforceable regulations that, while not directly intended to
address or reduce SO2 emissions, may yield reductions of the
pollutant. A detailed discussion of each of these factors is below.
1. Impact on the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area
    The nearest nonattainment area to Vermont for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS is in New Hampshire. On August 5, 2013, EPA
designated the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area, an area
surrounding Merrimack Station, a coal-fired power plant, as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. See 78 FR 47191. On
September 28, 2017, EPA proposed approval of New Hampshire's attainment
plan for this nonattainment area. See 82 FR45242. The State's plan did
not rely on any reductions in SO2 emissions from sources in
Vermont to demonstrate the Central New Hampshire Nonattainment Area
will attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS by the 2018

attainment date. Furthermore, no comments received on EPA's proposed
approval of the State's plan suggest SO2 emissions from
sources in Vermont should be considered in any attainment
demonstration.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See docket for Air Plan Approval; NH; Attainment Plan for
the Central New Hampshire 2010 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment
Area at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0083.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. SO2 Emissions Trends
    As noted above, EPA's approach for addressing the interstate
transport of SO2 in Vermont is based upon emissions from
fuel combustion at electric utilities, industrial sources, and
residential heating. As part of the SIP submittal, Vermont observed
that, in accordance with the most recently available designations
guidance at the time,\16\ there were no facilities in Vermont with
reported actual emissions greater than or equal to 500 tons per year of
SO2 in 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ March 24, 2011 guidance document titled, ``Area
Designations for the 2010 Revised Primary Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.'' See, e.g., http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/AirQuality/documents/SO2DesignationsGuidance2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the 2014 NEI data, the highest SO2
emissions from a single point source was 158 tons from Agrimark in
Middlebury, Vermont and the next largest emitter of SO2 from
an industrial or electric generating facility in Vermont was Fibermark,
located in Brattleboro, which emitted 12 tons of SO2.
    As demonstrated by the data in Table 2, statewide SO2
emissions in Vermont and in its three neighboring states, New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York, have significantly decreased
over time. This decreasing trend should continue into the near future
in Vermont, New York, and Massachusetts as these three states have
adopted strategies to lower the sulfur content (by weight) of fuel
oil.\17\ By July 1, 2018, the home heating oil in these three states
will be limited to 15 parts per million (ppm) of sulfur by weight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ On May 22, 2012, EPA approved Vermont's low sulfur fuel
regulation. See 77 FR 30212. On September 19, 2013, EPA approved
Massachusetts' low sulfur fuel regulation. See 78 FR 57487. On
August 8, 2012, EPA approved New York's low sulfur fuel statute. See
77 FR 51915.

    Table 2--Statewide SO2 Data (Tons per Year) for Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Massachusetts \18\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                % Change from
              State                    2000            2005            2010            2016        2000 to 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont.........................           9,438           7,038           3,659           1,455             -85
New Hampshire...................          68,768          63,634          35,716           5,462             -92
Massachusetts...................         208,146         139,937          57,892          13,518             -94
New York........................         543,868         386,568         170,247          59,520             -89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. SO2 Ambient Air Quality
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data collected at an ambient air quality monitor located in
Rutland, Vermont indicates that the monitored values of SO2
in the State have remained below the NAAQS. Relevant data from Air
Quality Standards (AQS) Design Value (DV) \19\ reports for recent and
complete 3-year periods are summarized in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A ``Design Value'' is a statistic that describes the air
quality status of a given location relative to the level of the
NAAQS. The interpretation of the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS
(set at 75 parts per billion [ppb]) including the data handling
conventions and calculations necessary for determining compliance
with the NAAQS can be found in Appendix T to 40 CFR part 50.

                       Table 3--Trend in SO2 Design Values for the AQS Monitor in Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        2012-2014 DV  2013-2015 DV  2014-2016 DV
             AQS monitor site                    Monitor location           (ppb)         (ppb)         (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
50-021-0002..............................  Rutland....................           13             9             6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 3 above, the DVs at the Rutland monitor for all
periods between 2012 and 2016 have decreased. The most recent DV for
the Rutland monitor, covering the years 2014-2016, is 6 ppb, which is
92% below the NAAQS.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ There is another ambient monitor in Underhill, Vermont that
only had a valid DV for 2014-2016. The DV was 2 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the absence of a violating ambient air quality monitor
within the State is insufficient to demonstrate that Vermont has met
its interstate transport obligation. While the decreasing DVs may help
to assist in characterizing air quality within Vermont, prong 1 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) specifically addresses what effects sources
within Vermont may have on air quality in neighboring states.
Therefore, an evaluation and analysis of SO2 emissions data
from facilities within the State, together with the potential effects
of such emissions on ambient air quality in neighboring states, is
appropriate.
    As previously discussed, EPA's definitions of spatial scales for
SO2 monitoring networks indicate that the maximum impacts
from stationary sources can be expected within 4 kilometers of such
sources, and that distances up to 50 kilometers would be useful for
assessing trends and concentrations in area-wide air quality. The only
neighboring states within 50 km of an SO2 source in Vermont
are Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. As a result, no further
analysis of other Northeast states was conducted for assessing the
impacts of the interstate transport of SO2 pollution from
facilities located in Vermont.
    There are four ambient SO2 monitors operating in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York within 50 km of Vermont's
border. These monitors are identified in Table 4, along with those
monitors' DVs for SO2 in the last three, three-year periods.
As shown in Table 4, SO2 DVs for these monitors are
decreasing, with the exception of Wilmington, NY which increased 1 ppb
between the 2013-2015 and 2014-2016

periods. The highest DV for the most recent DV period (between 2014-
2016) is 8% of the NAAQS.

                  Table 4--Trend in SO2 Design Values for AQS Monitors Within 50 km of Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   2012-2014 DV    2013-2015 DV    2014-2016 DV
           AQS monitor site                 Monitor location           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-015-4002...........................  Quabbin Summit, MA......               6               5               4
33-011-5001...........................  Pack Monadock, NH.......               5               5               3
36-001-00012..........................  Loudonville Reservoir,                 8               8               6
                                         NY.
36-031-0003...........................  Wilmington, NY..........               3               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Federally Enforceable Regulations Specific to SO2 and
Permitting Requirements
    The State has various regulations to ensure that SO2
emissions are not expected to substantially increase in the future. One
notable example consists of the federally-enforceable conditions
contained in Vermont's Air Pollution Control Regulation (APCR),
Subchapter II, Section 5-221, ``Prohibition of Pollution Potential
Materials in Fuel.'' This regulation, last approved by EPA into the SIP
on May 22, 2012 (77 FR 30212) limits the amount of sulfur by weight in
fuel oil. As discussed earlier in this document, the 2014 NEI indicates
that the single largest, albeit diffuse, source category of
SO2 emissions in Vermont is from fuel combustion for
residential heating (891 tons). Starting on July 1, 2014 the sulfur
content for home heating oil in Vermont was lowered to 500 parts per
million (ppm), or 0.05% by weight. An additional reduction in the
amount of SO2 emissions from the use of home heating oil
will occur after July 1, 2018 when the sulfur content will be reduced
from 500 ppm to 15 ppm or 0.0015% by weight, representing a 97%
decrease in SO2 emissions from residential oil combustion.
    In addition, for the purposes of ensuring that SO2
emissions at new or modified stationary sources in Vermont do not
adversely impact air quality, the State's SIP-approved nonattainment
new source review (NNSR) and prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) programs are contained in APCR, Subchapter V ``Review of New Air
Contaminant Sources.'' This regulation ensures that SO2
emissions due to new facility construction or to modifications at
existing facilities will not adversely impact air quality in Vermont
and will likely not adversely impact air quality in neighboring states.
    Finally, in addition to the State's SIP-approved regulations, EPA
observes that facilities in Vermont are also subject to the federal
requirements contained in regulations such as the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial,
Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters. This
regulation reduces acid gases, which have a co-benefit of reducing
SO2 emissions.
5. Conclusion
    As discussed, EPA has considered the following information in
evaluating the State's satisfaction of the requirements of prong 1 of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I):
    (1) Past and projected SO2 emission trends demonstrate
that ambient SO2 air quality issues in neighboring states
are unlikely to occur due to SO2 emissions from sources in
Vermont; and
    (2) Current SIP provisions and other federal programs will further
reduce SO2 emissions from sources within Vermont.
    Based on the analysis provided by the State in its November 2, 2015
SIP submission and based on each of the factors listed above, EPA
proposes to find that any sources or other emissions activity within
the State will not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

B. Prong 2 Analysis--Interference With Maintenance of the
SO2 NAAQS

    Prong 2 of the good neighbor provision requires state plans to
prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of a NAAQS in
another state. Given the continuing trend of decreased SO2
emissions from sources within Vermont, EPA believes that a reasonable
criterion to ensure that sources or other emissions activity
originating within Vermont do not interfere with its neighboring
states' ability to maintain the NAAQS consists of evaluating whether
these decreases in emissions can be maintained over time.
    As shown in Table 2, above, state-wide SO2 emissions in
Vermont, and the three neighboring states of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, and New York, have significantly decreased since 2000. Three
of these states (Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont) have EPA-
approved low sulfur fuel oil requirements in their SIPs, requiring the
sulfur content in home heating oil and other sources using distillate
oil to be lowered by an additional 97% no later than July 1, 2018.\21\
According to 2014 NEI data, home heating oil is the largest category of
SO2 emissions in three of the states, Vermont,
Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. In New York, home heating oil was not
the largest category of SO2 emissions in the 2014 NEI
because the sulfur content in home heating oil was reduced by the State
to 15 ppm on July 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See 77 FR 30212 (May 22, 2012) for Vermont, 78 FR 57487
(September 19, 2013) for Massachusetts, and 77 FR 51915 (August 8,
2012), for New York.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utilizing home heating oil usage data from the U. S. Energy
Information Administration and SIP-approved limits on the sulfur
content of home heating oil, future SO2 emissions from home
heating oil can be forecasted in Massachusetts and Vermont where the
reduction in sulfur content to 15 ppm will not take effect until July
1, 2018. According to EPA's guidance titled ``Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors (AP42)'' Chapter 1.3 titled, ``Fuel Oil
Combustion,'' \22\ more than 95% of the sulfur in fuel is converted to
SO2. Table 5 provides the estimated SO2 emissions
from Massachusetts and Vermont based on home heating oil usage in 2016
and using the average annual home heating oil usage over a five-year
period (2012-2016) \23\ to estimate the SO2 emissions in
2019, when the sulfur content limit of 15 ppm will be in place for the
entire calendar year heating season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See emission factors at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch01/final/c01s03.pdf.
    \23\ See residential fuel oil usage at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_821usea_a_epd0_var_mgal_a.htm.

                             Table 5--Estimated SO2 Emissions From Home Heating Oil
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Estimate of     Estimate of
                                                                   Average home    SO2 emissions   SO2 emissions
                                                                    heating oil     (tons) from     (tons) from
                              State                                 usage 2012-     households      households
                                                                    2016 (1,000      using oil       using oil
                                                                       gal)           (2016)          (2019)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont.........................................................          70,701             254               8
Massachusetts...................................................         545,075           1,643              58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While EPA does not currently have a way to quantify the impacts of
multiple small, diffuse sources of SO2 on air quality in
neighboring states, the drastic decrease in the allowable sulfur
content in fuel oil in Vermont and the associated reductions in
SO2 emissions, combined with the diffuse nature of these
emissions, makes it unlikely that the current and future emissions from
residential combustion of fuel oil are likely to lead to interference
of maintenance of the NAAQS in a neighboring state. Specifically, by
2018, in both Massachusetts and Vermont, the yearly SO2
emissions from a household using 1,000 gallons of fuel oil will drop to
under 0.21 pounds per year.
    As shown in Table 2, statewide SO2 emissions in Vermont
have decreased over time. Several factors have caused this decrease in
emissions, including the effective date of APCR Subchapter II, Section
5-221 and industrial boilers switching to lower sulfur emitting fuels
due to economics. According to emission trends data,\24\ SO2
emissions from industrial sources decreased in Vermont by almost 90%
from 2000 to 2016. The EPA believes that since actual SO2
emissions from the facilities currently operating in Vermont have
decreased between 2000 and 2016, this trend shows that emissions
originating in Vermont are not expected to interfere with the
neighboring states' ability to maintain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Air Pollution Emissions Trend Data at https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/air-pollutant-emissions-trends-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, EPA expects SO2 from point sources
combusting fuel oil in Vermont will be lower in the future due to the
lowering of the sulfur content in fuels as required by APCR Subchapter
II, Section 5-221.
    Lastly, any future large sources of SO2 emissions will
be addressed by Vermont's SIP-approved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. Future minor sources of SO2
emissions will be addressed by the State's minor new source review
permit program. The permitting regulations contained within these
programs, along with the other factors already discussed, are expected
to help ensure that ambient concentrations of SO2 in
Massachusetts, New Hampshire or New York are not exceeded as a result
of new facility construction or modification occurring in Vermont.
    It is also worth noting the air quality trends for ambient
SO2 in the Northeastern United States.\25\ This region has
experienced a 77% decrease in the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour averages between 2000 and 2015 based on 46 monitoring
sites, and the most recently available data for 2015 indicates that the
mean value at these sites was 17.4 ppb, a value less than 25% of the
NAAQS. When this trend is evaluated alongside the monitored
SO2 concentrations within the State of Vermont as well as
the SO2 concentrations recorded at monitors in
Massachusetts, New York, and New Hampshire within 50 km of Vermont's
border, EPA does not believe that sources or emissions activity from
within Vermont are significantly different than the overall decreasing
monitored SO2 concentration trend in the Northeast region.
As a result, EPA finds it unlikely that sources or emissions activity
from within Vermont will interfere with other states' ability to
maintain the 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on each of factors contained in the prong 2 maintenance
analysis above, EPA proposes to find that sources or other emissions
activity within the State will not interfere with maintenance of the
2010 primary SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

VI. Proposed Action

    Considering the above analysis, EPA is proposing to approve
Vermont's November 2, 2015 infrastructure submittal for the 2010
primary SO2 NAAQS as it pertains to Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because

application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 2, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2018-07231 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 131 (Friday, July 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 44685]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC

Application of Tropic Ocean Airways, LLC for Commuter Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 2016-7-2), Docket DOT-OST-
2015-0259.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order finding Tropic
Ocean Airways, LLC, fit, willing, and able, and awarding it Commuter
Air Carrier Authorization.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than
July 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in
Docket DOT-OST-2015-0259 and addressed to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, (M-30, Room W12-140), 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590,
and should be served upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the
order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Damon D. Walker, Air Carrier Fitness
Division (X-56, Room W86-465), U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 1, 2016.
Jenny T. Rosenberg,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-16195 Filed 7-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57631-57632]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0091; FRL 9531-1]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Ambient Air Quality Surveillance (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Ambient Air Quality Surveillance
(Renewal) (EPA ICR No. 0940.27, OMB Control No. 2060-0084) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through January 31, 2015. This ICR renewal also addresses and
incorporates requirements and burden currently approved under the
Nitrogen Oxides Ambient Monitoring ICR (OMB 2060-0638, EPA ICR
Number 2358.03) and the Sulfur Dioxides Ambient Monitoring ICR
(OMB 2060-0642, EPA ICR Number 2370.02). Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (78 FR 12052) on February
21, 2013 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 21,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2002-0091, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk
Officer for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Trinca, Air Quality Analysis
Division (C304-06), Environmental Protection Agency; telephone number
(919) 541-0520; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This Information Collection Request (ICR) includes
ambient air monitoring data and other supporting measurements reporting
and recordkeeping activities associated with the Ambient Air Quality
Surveillance Rule, 40 CFR part 58. This data and information are
collected by various State and local air quality management agencies
and Tribal entities, and reported to the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards within the Office of Air and Radiation, EPA.
    The data collected through this information collection consist of
ambient air concentration measurements for the seven air pollutants
with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (i.e., ozone, sulfur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, carbon monoxide, PM2.5 and
PM-10), ozone precursors, meteorological variables at a select number
of sites and other supporting measurements. Accompanying the pollutant
concentration data are quality assurance/quality control data and air
monitoring network design information.
    The EPA and others (e.g., State and local air quality management
agencies, tribal entities, environmental groups, academic institutions,
industrial groups) use the ambient air quality data for many purposes,
including informing the public and other interested parties of an
area's air quality, judging an area's (e.g., county, city,
neighborhood) air quality in comparison with the established health or
welfare standards (including both national and local standards),
evaluating an air quality management agency's progress in achieving or
maintaining air pollutant levels below the national and local
standards, developing and revising State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in
accordance with 40 CFR 51, evaluating air pollutant control strategies,
developing or revising national control policies, providing data for
air quality model development and validation, supporting enforcement
actions, documenting episodes and initiating episode controls, air
quality trends assessment and air pollution research.
    The State and local agencies and tribal entities with
responsibility for reporting ambient air quality data and information
as requested in this ICR submit these data electronically to the EPA's
Air Quality System (AQS) database. Quality assurance/quality control
records and monitoring network documentation are also maintained by
each State and local agency, in AQS electronic format where possible.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State and local air pollution
agencies and Tribal entities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 168.
    Frequency of Response: Quarterly, but may occur more frequently.
    Total Estimated Annual Hour Burden: 1,790,021 hours. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Annual Cost: $194,490,047. This includes an
estimated labor cost of $126,733,274 and an estimated cost of
$13,090,237 for operations and maintenance and $54,666,536 for
equipment and contract costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 700,331 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in
the ICR currently approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's
consolidation of monitors into fewer sites, termination of unnecessary
monitors, and more efficient procedures for measuring and reporting
data.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-22740 Filed 9-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P