[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28246-28247]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11409]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1367; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASO-41]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Tullahoma, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace in the Tullahoma, TN area,
as the Arnold Air Force Base has been closed and controlled airspace
associated with the airport is being removed. Airspace reconfiguration
is necessary for the continued safety and airspace management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations within the Tullahoma, TN
airspace area. This action also makes a minor adjustment to the
geographic coordinates of the Tullahoma Regional Airport/Wm Northern
Field.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, July 26, 2012. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On March 2, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Tullahoma,
TN (77 FR 12759). Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations
are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Tullahoma, TN. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due
to the closing of Arnold Air Force Base, and supports new standard
instrument approach procedures developed at Tullahoma Regional Airport/
Wm Northern Field. Controlled airspace is necessary for the continued
safety and management of IFR operations within the Tullahoma, TN, area.
This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates of the Tullahoma
Regional Airport/Wm Northern Field to be in concert with the FAAs
aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace in the Tullahoma, TN area.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 9, 2011, effective September 15, 2011, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Tullahoma, TN [Amended]

Tullahoma Regional Airport/Wm Northern Field, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]22'48'' N., long. 86[deg]14'48'' W.)
Winchester Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 35[deg]10'39'' N., long. 86[deg]03'58'' W.)
Manchester Medical Center, Point In Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 35[deg]29'56'' N., long. 86[deg]05'37'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Tullahoma Regional Airport/Wm Northern
Field and within 4 miles either side of the 360[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 12 miles north of
the airport, and within an 11-mile radius of Winchester Municipal
Airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the point in space (lat.

35[deg]29'56'' N., long. 86[deg]05'37'' W.) serving Manchester
Medical Center.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 30, 2012.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2012-11409 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3644-3646]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0711]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Number: 1625-0080

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval of a
revision to the following collection of information: 1625-0080,
Customer Satisfaction Surveys. Our ICR describes the information we
seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we
only impose paperwork

burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2010-0711] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulation.gov.
(b) To OIRA by e-mail via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk
Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-611), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2100 2ND ST., SW., STOP 7101, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request [USCG 2010-0711], and must be received by February 22,
2011. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2010-0711], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an e-mail address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2010-0711'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0711'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: USCG-2010-0711.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The

Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (75 FR 57808, September 22,
2010) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Customer Satisfaction Surveys.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0080.
    Type of Request: Extension of a previously approved collection.
    Respondents: Recreational boaters, commercial mariners, industry
groups, and State/local governments.
    Abstract: Putting people first means ensuring that the Federal
Government provides the highest-quality of service possible to the
American people. Executive Order 12862 requires all executive
departments/agencies providing significant services directly to the
public, seek to meet established standards of customer service.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 15,516
hours to 1,316 hours a year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 7, 2011.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2011-1189 Filed 1-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 44 (Monday, March 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10487-10488]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4841]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0006]

International Conference on Harmonisation; Guidance on S9
Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals; Availability

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance entitled ``S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for
Anticancer Pharmaceuticals.'' The guidance was prepared under the
auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH).
The guidance provides recommendations for nonclinical studies for the
development of pharmaceuticals, including both drugs and biotechnology
derived products, intended to treat patients with advanced cancer. The
recommendations describe the type and timing of nonclinical studies to
support an investigational new drug application (IND) and the
submission of a new drug application (NDA) or biologics license
application (BLA). The guidance is intended to provide information on
internationally accepted recommendations for nonclinical studies to
facilitate the development of anticancer pharmaceuticals.

DATES:  Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidance at any
time.

ADDRESSES:  Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance
to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels
to assist the office in processing your requests. The guidance may also
be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Submit written comments on the guidance to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the guidance: John K.
Leighton, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, Bldg. 22, rm. 2204, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Mercedes Serabian, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regarding the ICH: Michelle Limoli, Office of International
Programs (HFG-1), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane,
Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is
committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical
procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of
harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical
requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite
harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both
regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from
consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with
harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of
pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan,
and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European
Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries
Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the
Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug
Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and
the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH
Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is
provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
    The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of
the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World
Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
    In the Federal Register of February 17, 2009 (74 FR 7445), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``S9 Nonclinical Evaluation for Anticancer Pharmaceuticals.''
The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by
April 20, 2009.
    After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the
guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH
Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory
agencies in October, 2009.
    The guidance provides guidance on recommendations for nonclinical
studies for the development of pharmaceuticals, including both drugs
and biotechnology derived products, intended to treat patients with
advanced cancer. The recommendations describe the type and timing of
nonclinical studies to support an IND and the submission of an NDA or
BLA.
    In response to comments received on the draft guidance, the
guidance was revised to provide clarification of the following topics:
(1) The intended patient population covered by the guidance, (2)
inclusion of recovery groups for general toxicology studies, (3)
additional nonclinical studies to support clinical dosing schedule
changes, and (4) when impurities should be qualified. The guidance was
revised to address the following additional topics: (1) Inclusion of
electrocardiographic measurements as part of general toxicology
studies, (2) the study design for reproduction toxicology assessment
for biopharmaceuticals, (3) assessment of the safety of pharmaceutical
combinations, and (4) photosafety assessments.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments on the guidance.
Submit a

single copy of electronic comments or two paper copies of any mailed
comments, except that individuals may submit one paper copy. Comments
are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division
of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: March 2, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4841 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 148 (Friday, August 1, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44950-44953]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72683; File No. SR-EDGX-2014-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify
for Members and Non-Members the Use of Certain Data Feeds for Order
Handling and Execution, Order Routing and Regulatory Compliance of EDGX
Exchange, Inc.

July 28, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 15, 2014, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to clarify for Members \3\ and non-Members
the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and
execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Internet Web site
at www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A Member will
have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in

sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange submits this filing to clarify for Members and non-
Members the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and
execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
Order Handling and Execution
    The Exchange's Matching Engine (the ``ME'') determines whether an
order should be displayed, executed internally, or routed to another
market center. In making this determination, the ME continually
receives and maintains quote data that is delivered from an internal
processor (the ``Feed Handler''). The market data processed by the Feed
Handler is sourced directly from the Securities Information Processors
(``SIP'') feeds.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange's ME uses the
Consolidated Tape Association (CTA) market data operated by the
Securities Industry Automation Corp. in Tapes A and B and Unlisted
Trading Privileges (UTP) market data operated by NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc.
in Tape C securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As part of the plan of integration pursuant to the merger
between Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the holding company for the
Exchange, and BATS Global Markets, Inc., in January 2015, the
Exchange will transition to the use of quotes disseminated by major
protected market centers through proprietary data feeds, and
disseminated by the SIP for other protected market centers, to
calculate the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO''). See
www.bats.com/edgeintegration. The Exchange will submit a filing to
the Commission prior to January 2015 to reflect the transition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These SIP feeds contain the best (top-of-book) prices in round lot
quotations of each protected venue. The ME utilizes the SIP feeds to
obtain the top-of-book quotes. On EDGX, this excludes EDGX's top-of-
book quotes, but includes the top-of-book quotes from the Exchange's
affiliates, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BZX''), and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''). Based on the SIP feeds
and the EDGX Book,\5\ the ME constructs the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``EDGX Book'' is defined as ``the System's
electronic file of orders.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ME will also update the NBBO upon receipt of an Intermarket
Sweep Order (``ISO'') with a time-in-force of Day (``Day ISO''). When a
Day ISO is posted on the EDGX Book, the ME uses the receipt of a Day
ISO as evidence that the protected quotes have been cleared, and the ME
does not check away markets for equal or better-priced protected
quotes.\6\ The ME will then display and execute non-ISO orders at the
same price as the Day ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pursuant to Regulation NMS, a broker-dealer routing a Day
ISO is required to simultaneously route one or more additional ISOs,
as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any
protected quote priced equal to or better than the Day ISO. See also
Question 5.02 in the ``Division of Trading and Markets, Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of
Regulation NMS'' (last updated April 4, 2008) available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NBBO is utilized for order handling and execution. The Exchange
looks to its calculation of the NBBO, based on the SIP feeds and the
EDGX Book, when determining the mid-point of the NBBO for purposes of a
Mid-Point Match Order \7\ or the price at which a Pegged Order \8\ is
to be pegged. The Exchange also utilizes its calculation of the NBBO
when re-pricing orders pursuant to Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(4) and when
handling NBBO Offset Peg Orders \9\ and Route Peg Orders.\10\ As
described below, the ME will include quotes from market centers that
declare self-help in its calculation of the NBBO for the purpose of re-
pricing orders whose price depends on the NBBO, such as pegging,
midpoint, etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(7).
    \8\ See Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(6).
    \9\ See Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(15).
    \10\ See Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Routing
    When the Exchange has a marketable order with instructions from the
sender that the order is eligible to be routed, and the ME identifies
that there is no matching price available on the Exchange, but there is
a matching price represented at another venue that displays protected
quotes, then the ME will send the order to the Routing Engine (``RE'')
of Direct Edge ECN LLC (d/b/a DE Route).
    In determining whether to route an order, the RE makes its own
calculation of the NBBO for a security using quotes disseminated by
market centers through proprietary data feeds (``Direct Feeds'') where
available and the SIP feeds from those venues where the Exchange does
not take the Direct Feeds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EDGX consumes Direct Feeds from EDGA, BZX and BYX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RE utilizes a third-party market data processor that consumes
the Direct Feeds and the SIP feeds, aggregates the quantities of
symbols by price level, and redistributes them to an internal quote
processor (the ``Quote Server''). The RE will request from the Quote
Server a market data snapshot which includes the top-of-book and/or
depth-of-book of each market center offering depth-of-book feeds. Based
on this snapshot, the RE calculates the NBBO for a security and routes
the order, allocating the shares to the venues at each price level up
to the limit price of the order, starting with the best protected
quotes in accordance with Regulation NMS subject to the Member's
instructions. If there are any shares remaining after the response to
the initial route is received, the RE will take another snapshot from
the Quote Server and send out orders based on the same logic. If the
full quantity of the order is not executed after multiple route
attempts, the order is returned to the ME.
    In addition, the RE utilizes in-flight order information in its
routing methodology. The RE tracks the details of each in-flight order,
including the quantity routed and the corresponding quote published by
the routed venue. After the RE requests a market data snapshot from the
Quote Server and the RE has already targeted this quote (identified by
venue, symbol, price, quantity and time stamp), then the RE will
subtract the routed quantity of in-flight orders from the quote size
displayed in the market data snapshot. The RE will route an order for
the remaining quantity to the venue. If there are no residual shares,
the RE will bypass the quote.
    The RE also utilizes responses from other venues displaying
protected quotes in its routing methodology. When the RE receives a
response from a venue that does not completely fill the order targeting
a quote, and no subsequent quote update has been received from that
venue at the same price level, the RE will mark that venue's quote as
stale at that price level.\12\ Absent additional quote updates from
that venue, the RE will bypass the quote for one (1) second. After one
second, if the quote is still included in the market data snapshot, the
RE will target the quote again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Question 11 of the ``Division of Market Regulation:
Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule
610 of Regulation NMS'' describes routing practices in the context
of stale quotes, available athttp://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule611faq.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Compliance
    Locked or Crossed Markets. The ME determines whether the display of
an order would lock or cross the market. At the time an order is
entered into the ME, the ME will establish, based upon the prevailing
top-of-book quotes of other exchanges displaying protected quotes
received from the SIP feeds, whether the order will lock or cross the
prevailing NBBO for a security. In the event that

the order would produce a locking or crossing condition, the ME will
cancel the order, re-price \13\ the order or route the order based on
the Member's instructions. Two exceptions to this logic are Day ISOs
and declarations of self-help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 11.5(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Regulation NMS, when an Exchange receives a Day ISO,
the sender of the ISO retains the responsibility to comply with
applicable rules relating to locked and crossed markets.\14\ In such
case, the Exchange is obligated only to display a Day ISO order at the
Member's price, even if such price would lock or cross the market.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 6 [sic].
    \15\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Declarations of self-help occur when the RE detects that an
exchange displaying protected quotes is slow or non-responsive to the
Exchange's routed orders. In this circumstance, according to Rule
611(b) of Regulation NMS, the Exchange may display a quotation that may
lock or cross quotations from the market where the quotation that it
may lock or cross is displayed by the market that the Exchange invoked
self-help against.\16\ The ME and RE, when they take their market data
snapshots, maintain logic that will ignore the quotes generated from
the self-helped market in their calculations of the NBBO for execution
and routing determinations in compliance with Regulation NMS. The
Exchange will also disable all routing to the self-helped market. The
ME and Quote Server will continue to consume the self-helped market
center's quotes; however, in order to immediately include the quote in
the NBBO calculation and enable routing once self-help is revoked. As
described above, the Exchange will include quotes from the self-helped
market for re-pricing purposes such as pegged orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See also Question 5.03 in the ``Division of Trading and
Markets, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611
and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS'' (last updated April 4, 2008)
available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trade-Through Rule. Pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the
Exchange shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs on
trading centers of protected quotations in NMS stocks that do not fall
within a valid exception and, if relying on such an exception, that are
reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the terms of the
exception. The ME will not permit an execution on the Exchange if there
are better-priced protected quotations displayed in the market unless
the order is an ISO. At the time an order is entered into the ME, the
ME uses the view of the NBBO as described above. If the NBBO is priced
better than what is resident on the Exchange, the Exchange will not
match such order on the EDGX Book, and based on the Member's
instructions, the ME will cancel the order, re-price the order or route
the order.
    Regulation SHO. The Exchange cannot execute a Short Sale Order \17\
equal to or below the current National Best Bid (``NBB'') when a short
sale price restriction is in effect pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation
SHO (``Short Sale Circuit Breaker'').\18\ When a Short Sale Circuit
Breaker is in effect, the Exchange utilizes information received from
the SIP feeds and a view of the EDGX Book to assess its compliance with
Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. The NBBO used for compliance with Rule 201
of Regulation SHO includes quotes from market centers against which the
Exchange has declared self-help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Exchange Rule 11.15.
    \18\ 17 CFR 242.200(g); 17 CFR 242.201. On February 26, 2010,
the Commission adopted amendments to Regulation SHO under the Act in
the form of Rule 201, pursuant to which, among other things, short
sale orders in covered securities generally cannot be executed or
displayed by a trading center, such as the Exchange, at a price that
is at or below the current NBB when a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is
in effect for the covered security. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61595 (February 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010).
In connection with the adoption of Rule 201, Rule 200(g) of
Regulation SHO was also amended to include a ``short exempt''
marking requirement. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63247 (November 4, 2010), 75 FR 68702 (November 9, 2010) (extending
the compliance date for Rules 201 and 200(g) to February 28, 2011).
See also Division of Trading & Markets: Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule201faq.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Latent or Inaccurate Direct Feeds. Where the Exchange's systems
detect problems with one or more Direct Feeds, the Quote Server can
manually fail over to the SIP feed to calculate the NBBO for the market
center(s) where the applicable Direct Feed is experiencing issues. In
order to make this determination, the Quote Server continuously polls
every Direct Feed line and generates an email alert if the difference
between a quote's sent time (as stamped by the sending market) and the
time of receipt by the Exchange exceeds one (1) second.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange does not
believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers because it will be available to all
Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to describe the Exchange's
use of data feeds removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of
a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest
because it provides additional specificity and transparency. The
Exchange's proposal will enable investors to better assess the quality
of the Exchange's execution and routing services. The proposal does not
change the operation of the Exchange or its use of data feeds; rather
it describes how, and for what purposes, the Exchange uses the quotes
disseminated from data feeds to calculate the NBBO for a security for
purposes of Regulation NMS, Regulation SHO and various order types that
update based on changes to the applicable NBBO. The Exchange believes
the additional transparency into the operation of the Exchange as
described in the proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the
proposal would enhance competition because describing the Exchange's
use of data feeds enhances transparency and enables investors to better
assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the 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, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \21\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

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-EDGX-2014-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-20. 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 the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2014-20 and should be
submitted on or before August 22, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-18118 Filed 7-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 56611-56612]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21622]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011; FRL-9900-68-Region 4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Koppers Co., Inc. (Florence
Plant) Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 announces
the deletion of the Koppers Co., Inc. (Florence Plant) Superfund Site
(Site) located in Florence, South Carolina, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil
and

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the
State of South Carolina, through the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), have determined that no
further response activities under CERCLA are appropriate. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund or other
regulatory authority.

DATES: This action is effective September 13, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011. All documents in the
docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
phone numbers and viewing hours are:
    Regional Site Information Repository: The EPA Record Center, Attn:
Ms. Anita Davis, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Hours of Operation (by appointment only):
8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
    Local Site Information Repository: Florence County Library, 509 S.
Dargan Street, Florence, South Carolina 29506. Hours of Operation: 9:00
a.m.-8:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday. 9:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m., Friday
through Saturday. 2:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m., Sunday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Jones, Remedial Project
Manager, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street
SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to be deleted from the NPL is:
Koppers Co., Inc. (Florence Plant) Superfund Site (Site) located in
Florence, South Carolina. A Notice of Intent to Delete for this Site
was published in the Federal Register on April 24, 2013.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was
May 24, 2013. No public comments were received during the comment
period. Therefore, a responsiveness summary was not prepared and placed
in both the docket, EPA-HQ-SFUND-2005-0011, on www.regulations.gov, and
in the local repositories listed above.
    The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Deletion from the NPL does not preclude further remedial
action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site deleted
from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL without
application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of a site from the
NPL does not affect responsible party liability in the unlikely event
that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 3, 2013.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as
follows:

PART 300--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

0
2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 is amended by removing ``Koppers
Co., Inc. (Florence Plant),'' ``Florence, South Carolina.''
[FR Doc. 2013-21622 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 31, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 16834]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2021-0039, Notice No. 1]

Public Meeting on Railroad Safety Advisory Committee Process

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Announcement of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) invites interested
persons to participate in a public meeting to discuss recommendations
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FRA's Railroad Safety
Advisory Committee (RSAC). The RSAC is a Federal Advisory Committee
that provides a forum for collaborative problem solving of critical
safety issues and, as appropriate, develops recommendations for
railroad safety regulations through a consensus process.

DATES: The public meeting is scheduled for April 16, 2021. The meeting
will commence at 10:00 a.m. and will adjourn by 12:00 p.m. (all times
Eastern Daylight Time). Requests to attend the meeting must be received
by April 9, 2021. Requests for time to speak at the meeting must be
received by April 9, 2021, and must include any written materials
intended for presentation at the meeting. Requests for accommodations
because of a disability must be received by April 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held by phone. Information on how to
call into the meeting will be provided upon registration.
    Comments on the RSAC process in response to this Announcement
should be submitted to docket number FRA-2021-0039 at regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenton Kilgore, RSAC Designated
Federal Officer/RSAC Coordinator, FRA Office of Railroad Safety, (202)
493-6286 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RSAC is a Federal Advisory Committee
composed of 34 voting representatives from 23 member organizations,
representing various rail industry perspectives. The RSAC has a
balanced membership of railroad management, labor, and other
appropriate railroad industry stakeholders. The RSAC's past
recommendations reflect the participants' careful evaluation of
significant and complex safety and regulatory issues. The RSAC has
addressed 58 tasks and conducted almost 600 committee, working group,
and task force meetings on critical safety issues.
    A copy of the current RSAC charter and other relevant reference
documents are available in the docket for review. Additional general
information about the RSAC is available on the RSAC website at https://rsac.fra.dot.gov/.
    This meeting is intended to solicit public input on the RSAC's
current charter and related requirements, and input on how to improve
the RSAC process generally. Although FRA welcomes input on any issues
related to the structure, organization, and processes of the RSAC, in
advance of the meeting FRA will post an agenda in the docket
highlighting specific issues on which FRA is interested in receiving
feedback. FRA will compile all input received at the meeting and post
that compilation to the docket.
    Public Participation: The meeting will be open to the public, but
attendance may be limited due to the number of available phone lines.
To register, please send an email to Mr. Kilgore at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by April 9, 2021. DOT and FRA are committed to
providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you
need alternative formats or services because of a disability, please
include your requested accommodations in your registration email.
Written comments on the RSAC process should be submitted to the public
docket noted above. To provide comment during the meeting, please send
an email, including any written materials to accompany your comment,
please send an email to Mr. Kilgore at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by April
9, 2021, to allow for review.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2021.
Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-06643 Filed 3-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 71710]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28689]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2013-0115]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated October 7, 2013, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
for the discontinuance or modification of a signal system. FRA assigned
the petition Docket Number FRA-2013-0115.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. Brian L. Sykes, Chief
Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, GA 30309.
    NS seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of automatic
signals and the installation of cab signals without wayside signaling
between Control Point (CP) Kiski, Milepost (MP) LC 47.8, and CP Penn,
MP LC 77.9, on the Conemaugh Line, Pittsburgh Division. CP Kiski, CP
Harris, CP Beale, CP Sharp, and CP Etna will be upgraded from existing,
legacy, relay-based signal systems to electronic-based signal systems.
Cab signals will be installed and the automatic color light signals at
MPs LC 53.9, LC 57.1, LC 63.1, LC 64.7, LC 67.6, and LC 75.1, will be
removed. ``Block Clear'' signals will be provided at all CPs in the
event of an onboard cab failure while in route.
    The reason given for the proposed changes is to facilitate train
moves and eliminate any potential nonconformity between the wayside
signals and cab signal. Also, since Positive Train Control is installed
on this line, there will not be different signal systems competing with
each other.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 13, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-28689 Filed 11-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


Chapter 4:	Approach for Estimating Reductions for Full Attainment
Scenario

This chapter presents the methodology used to estimate emission
reductions that may be needed to reach national attainment of the
proposed tighter alternate primary 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070-0.075
ppm.  After applying the hypothetical control strategy described in
Chapter 3, there were many areas that were still not projected to attain
the more stringent standard modeled of 0.070 ppm.  This chapter presents
the methodology EPA developed to determine emissions reductions needed
for national attainment of the alternate standards on each end of the
proposed range (e.g. 0.070 and 0.075 ppm).  It also presents estimated
emission reductions needed to attain a more stringent option analyzed of
0.065 ppm.

4.1  	Development of Air Quality Impact Ratios for Determination of
Extrapolated Costs

Table 3a.11 lists the highest projected design value in each monitored
county for the 2020 baseline (current standard – effectively 0.084
ppm) and after application of the illustrative national control strategy
designed to attain an alternate primary standard of 0.070 ppm.   From
this table one can determine the counties that did not meet the target
air quality levels after implementation of the national hypothetical
0.070 control scenario.  Because the goal of the RIA is to estimate the
estimated incremental costs of full attainment, some estimate of the
remaining emissions needed to reach these targets is required for each
of these areas.

It was beyond the scope of this illustrative analysis to perform
detailed area-specific analyses of the predicted additional emissions
reductions needed to meet various air quality goals.  Instead, based on
existing air quality sensitivity modeling, EPA developed several simple,
generic relationships of the expected air quality improvement to be
achieved as a result of ozone precursor reductions.  These relationships
are referred to here as "impact ratios" and have units of ppb of ozone
improvement per thousand tons of ozone precursor emissions reduction
(ppb/kton).  Two separate approaches were used to develop the impact
ratios.  The following paragraphs describe the development of the impact
ratios used in the extrapolated cost analysis of this RIA.  Based on
data presented later in this chapter and considering the uncertainties
and limitations of both approaches, we decided to use a single impact
ratio for NOx and a single impact ratio for VOC for the purposes of this
illustrative analysis for all areas in the U.S. that are included in the
extrapolated cost analysis.

4.1.1	Approach A: Use of Sensitivity Modeling of Local Emissions
Reductions

In this approach, the impact ratios were calculated based on modeling
results from four existing, 36 km CMAQ 2010 emissions sensitivity
simulations and a 2010 base case simulation derived from previously
completed modeling:

90% NOx reduction in all anthropogenic sectors in nine specific local
areas,

90% NOx reduction in all anthropogenic sectors over the rest of the
U.S.,

90% VOC reduction in all anthropogenic sectors in nine specific local
areas,

90% VOC reduction in all anthropogenic sectors over the rest of the U.S.

We calculated the ppb/kton ratios for five of the nine zones shown in
Figure 4.1 that are included in the extrapolated costs analysis: Dallas,
Atlanta, the Lake Michigan area, the Northeast Corridor, and central
California. It is expected that these five zones would provide a
representative range of ratios, so the analysis was not done for Denver,
Phoenix, and Salt Lake City.  Because we were not calculating
extrapolated tons for Seattle, the ratio determination was not done for
that region.  For monitoring sites in each of these five geographic
areas we compared the ozone improvement between the predicted ozone
concentrations in 2020, absent any additional controls for ozone, and
the 90% control cases (simulations 1 and 3) against the tons of NOx and
VOC reduced within the corresponding control area.  The impact ratio for
each site was calculated by dividing the ozone improvement by the
corresponding tons reduced.  Impact ratios were calculated for 88 sites
over the five analysis zones.  The results from Approach A are
summarized in Table 4.2

Figure 4.1:  Nine Local Control Areas in Existing 2010 Sensitivity Runs

The advantage to this approach is that it allows for all-sector,
local-only controls without consideration of transport effects.  This
approach is best-suited for areas in which ozone transport is not a
large contributor to the local ozone problem, relative to local
emissions (e.g., Atlanta, Dallas).

Table 4.1:  Summary of site-specific impact ratios over the five
analysis zones of Approach A.

	Minimum Impact Ratio 	Maximum Impact Ratio	Average Impact Ratio
Controlling County Impact Ratio

Atlanta	0.051	0.187	0.123	0.187

Central CA	0.077	0.106	0.095	0.106

Dallas	0.118	0.138	0.130	0.135

Lake Michigan Area	-0.022	0.052	0.010	0.032

Northeast Corridor	0.002	0.035	0.022	0.035

It is important to note that we are not able to factor in impacts of
controls outside of the local regions using this methodology and thus,
the impact ratios are likely to be conservative.  Additionally,
depending upon the source-receptor relationship at a particular
location, some impact ratios would be expected to be lower than others
due to prevailing transport direction.  For instance, one would not
expect a location in the southern portion of the Northeast Corridor to
show much local air quality improvement when the majority of the
controls were implemented upwind.  Other limitations to this approach
include: the assumption that response to NOx and VOC reductions is
linear between 0% and 90% control, the assumption that ratios developed
from 2010 base case modeling are applicable to 2020 post-strategy ozone,
and the fact that impact ratios calculated from a single month of 36 km
modeling may not be appropriate for an analysis of urban scale ozone.

A sample calculation for one of the sites in the five analysis zones (a
monitoring site located in Denton TX) is shown below:

A 90% NOx reduction equals 130.4 ktons in the local Dallas area.

The ozone improvement from this reduction was 17.6 ppb (87.9 to 70.3).

This yields an impact ratio of 0.135 ppb/kton for this county.

4.1.2	Approach B: Use of 2020 Baseline and RIA Control Scenario

In the second approach, we used the results from the 2020 baseline
(current standard, effectively .084 ppm) and the 2020 national .070
hypothetical control scenario to calculate impact ratios for Atlanta,
Houston, the Lake Michigan Area and the Northeast Corridor.  We focused
on these four analysis zones because they were expected to require
extensive extrapolated tons to attain the air quality targets.  We did
not use this approach in the western U.S. because there was very little
difference in the controls between those two cases in California.  We
calculated impact ratios for monitoring sites in each zone by dividing
the ozone change at each by the NOx emissions reductions that led to
that ozone reduction.  For the specific purpose of estimating impact
ratios, we have made the unrealistic but simplifying assumption that the
air quality change can be ascribed to the total NOx emissions changes
within 200 km of the area.  Different assumptions about which emissions
are responsible for the air quality change would yield different impact
ratios.

The advantage to Approach B is that it allows for an estimate of the
impact of actual controls applied regionally because controls in the
hypothetical 2020 .070 run cover nearly the entire eastern US.  Thus,
this approach is best suited for areas in which ozone transport is a
large contributor to the local ozone problem (e.g., the Lake Michigan
area and the Northeast Corridor).  The primary disadvantage to this
approach is that the 2020 .070 control scenario is weighted toward
non-EGU point source controls which may result in non-homogeneous
reductions and thereby affect individual county impact ratios.  Impact
ratios were calculated for 47 counties over the four analysis zones.
The results from Approach B are summarized in Table 4.2.

A sample calculation for one of the counties (Kenosha WI) is shown
below:

The RIA control scenario resulted in a NOx reduction of 16.8 ktons in
the Chicago zone.

The ozone improvement from this reduction was 1.6 ppb (86.6 to 85.0).

This yields an impact ratio of 0.095 ppb/kton for this county.

Table 4.2:  	Summary of site-specific impact ratios over the four
analysis zones of Approach B.

	Minimum Impact Ratio 	Maximum Impact Ratio	Average Impact Ratio
Controlling County Impact Ratio

Atlanta	0.041	0.129	0.068	0.070

Houston	0.050	0.057	0.054	0.057

Lake Michigan Area	-0.006	0.095	0.064	0.095

Northeast Corridor	0.068	0.155	0.110	0.105

4.2	Results from Impact Ratio Analyses

In general, both approaches indicate that impact ratios could range
between 0.03 and 0.20 ppb/kton.  However, the approaches did not yield
consistent impact ratios for individual analysis zones.  Individual
local impact ratios are likely influenced by: the importance of
transport, the local NOx/VOC ratio, the meteorology within the region,
and the location of monitors relative to specific source areas.

Table 4.3 shows the impact ratios for each of the controlling counties
within the areas considered.  Figure 4.2 shows the range of
county-specific impact ratios calculated over the four areas included in
the calculations for Approach B.  Based on these data and considering
the uncertainties and limitations of both approaches, we decided to use
a single impact ratio for NOx and a single impact ratio for VOC for the
purposes of this illustrative analysis for all areas in the U.S. that
are included in the extrapolated cost analysis.  These general impact
ratios are:

NOx impact ratio = 0.100 ppb/kton

VOC impact ratio = 0.025 ppb/kton

Table  4.3.  The NOx impact ratios at the controlling counties for each
methodology over the analysis zones.

Analysis Area	Impact Ratio at controlling county

	Approach A	Approach B

Atlanta	0.187	0.070

Central California	0.106

	Dallas	0.135

	Houston

0.057

Lake Michigan area	0.032	0.095

Northeast Corridor	0.035	0.105

Figure  4.2.  The NOx impact ratios at each county (sorted from lowest
to highest) for the Approach B over the four analysis areas

The selection of a 0.100 ppb/kton ratio was based on a consideration of
all estimated impact ratios from the bounding exercise of both
approaches and the technical limitations of  approaches.  There were
three specific reasons why we thought 0.100 ppb/kton represented the
best choice for extrapolating the tons needed to attain an air quality
target beyond the reductions from the RIA control scenario:

0.100 is within, and near the midpoint of,  the 0.03 to 0.20 range

0.100 is very close to the median value from Approach B (0.093 ppb/kton)

0.100 is very close to the average value at the key sites (0.091
ppb/kton).

The various methods did not generate consistent area-specific NOx impact
ratios.  Actual area-specific impact ratios are likely influenced by:
importance of transport, local NOx/VOC ratios, meteorology, and the
location of monitors relative to source areas. Higher impact ratios
would yield lower estimates of needed extrapolated tons and lower impact
ratio estimated would yield higher extrapolated tons/costs.

Note: A sample calculation for “Area X” will be provided in a
subsequent version of Chapter 4.

We intend to conduct additional sensitivity modeling for the final RIA
to improve the estimates of extrapolated tons needed to meet various
targets.   While it is premature to specify the exact nature of these
simulations, we expect this modeling to provide more information about
the non-linear responsiveness of ozone, the geographic variation in
ozone responsiveness, the impacts of local versus upwind emissions
reductions, and the relationship between NOx and VOC controls in various
areas.

4.3	Determination of Extrapolated Tons Control Areas

The extrapolated tons analysis varied slightly from the geographic areas
in which controls were applied for the illustrative 0.070 control
strategy described in Chapter 3.  In the extrapolated tons analysis, we
aggregated all counties that were above the air quality goal into
discrete control areas, that is, areas from which the tons would need to
be extracted in order to meet the target.  These control areas were
either regional, statewide, or local depending upon the nature of the
ozone problem within the area.  Two regional areas were identified: the
Ozone Transport Region and the Lake Michigan region.  Both of these
areas have traditionally employed multi-State control plans to lower
ozone in those regions.  For states with multiple areas above the air
quality target, we assumed that statewide control programs would be
developed to bring these areas into attainment.  For example, for the
0.065 ppm target, Ohio exceeds the air quality target in Cincinnati,
Cleveland, and Columbus.  We assumed that extrapolated tons could be
achieved anywhere in Ohio to meet the targets in all three areas.  All
remaining counties were treated as places where local controls would be
effective.  The only exceptions to the statewide assumption were in
Texas and California.  We separated the El Paso area into its own area
due to its distance (i.e., far greater than 200 km, which was the
distance used for the 0.070 control strategy) from the Eastern Texas
areas (Dallas, Houston).  In California, we combined the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valley counties into a single control area, but created a
separate control area for Southern California.  Table 4.4 shows how the
monitoring counties were aggregated into the extrapolated tons control
areas for the 0.070 ppm target.

Table  4.4  List of ozone monitoring counties and how they were
aggregated into extrapolated tons control areas for the 0.070 air
quality target.

4.4   	Selection of Air Quality Goal for this analysis

Under the Clean Air Act, areas are required to reach the air quality
standards as expeditiously as practicable and within certain statutorily
defined time periods.   In advance of formal designations and ozone
pollution level classifications, which will depend upon future air
quality data, it is uncertain when areas would be required to attain a
new ozone standard.  In addition, states may request, and EPA must
grant, a higher classification which under the law provides flexibility
for a state to justify a later attainment date. (The state
implementation plan must show that the attainment date selected for an
area is as expeditious as practicable, and no later than the maximum
statutory date for the area's classification.)  In view of these and
other factors, it is beyond our capability to simulate in advance the
state implementation process to determine the appropriate attainment
date and required controls for each potential nonattainment area for a
new standard.  Instead, we have constructed an illustrative analysis
that provides a level playing field for comparison of the impacts of
potential new, alternative standards.

An important consideration in the determination of the amount of air
quality improvement needed to reach a tighter ozone standard is the
dates by which each area must come into attainment.  As discussed
earlier, for several analytical reasons we selected the year 2020 (i.e.,
approximately 10 years from designations), as the analytical target year
for this analysis.  Therefore, this analysis presents two sets of
results.  The first reflects attainment of the alternative ozone
standards in all locations of the U.S. except two areas of California in
2020.  These two areas of California are not planning to meet the
current standard by 2020 (see discussion below), so the estimated costs
and benefits for these areas are based on reaching an estimated progress
point (their “glidepath” targets) in 2020.  The second set of
results, for California only, estimate the costs and benefits from
California fully attaining the alternative standards in a year beyond
2020 (glidepath estimates, plus the increment needed to reach full
attainment beyond 2020, added together for a California total). However,
as noted above, we are not attempting to prejudge the attainment dates
and controls that ultimately will be determined through the SIP process,
and it may turn out that attainment occurs later than 2020 for
additional areas, particularly in areas where the future SIP process
shows that very high-cost controls would be needed to attain by 2020.
For reasons explained below, assuming longer attainment dates would
reduce costs and benefits of meeting the current and alternative
standards, and would reduce costs more sharply in areas assumed to
employ high-cost controls to meet an artificial deadline.

The South Coast (Los Angeles area) and San Joaquin Air Quality
Management Districts recently have proposed for comment state
implementation plans with the statutory maximum 20-year attainment dates
(June 2024, with attainment-level reductions by 2023) for meeting the
current 8-hour standard, which would involve a request to reclassify
those two areas to the “extreme” classification. This presented an
analytical dilemma for this analysis because assuming that these areas
would be classified severe or extreme for purposes of a new standard,
these areas would not be required to attain any new standard until after
the analytical year of 2020.  If an area is initially classified severe,
the law still would allow the state to request reclassification to
extreme and to demonstrate that a 20-year attainment date (e.g., in
2030, if designations occurred in 2010) is as expeditious as
practicable.  Thus, an assumption that these areas would attain a
tighter standard by 2020, significantly earlier than would be required
under the Clean Air Act, would artificially inflate both the costs and
benefits of the nation attaining the new standard in 2020 on a national
level.

A further reason that we believe it would be inappropriate for the
analysis to assume attainment by 2020 with new, more stringent
alternative standards in the San Joaquin and South Coast areas is that
existing rules, especially for on-road and non-road mobile sources, will
achieve substantial additional reductions in NOx and VOC after 2020
before reaching their full impact in 2030.  If San Joaquin and South
Coast received the maximum statutory 20-year attainment dates for new
alternative standards, for example, they would have an attainment date
in 2030, and would benefit from reductions in NOx and VOC from existing
rules between 2020 and 2030.  By 2029, existing rules for onroad and
nonroad engines would achieve 62,000 tons of residual emissions
reductions needed for attainment at no cost beyond the baseline for this
analysis.   By contrast, assuming 2020 attainment for these areas would
result in assuming additional high-cost reductions from unknown control
measures.  Therefore, assuming 2020 attainment for these areas could
result in a significant overestimate of costs.  Likewise, the benefits
would be overestimated because the tons are attributable to these
existing rules that have reductions occurring after 2020 and are not
part of our hypothetical control strategy.

Thus, for this analysis we have chosen to present the 2020 costs and
benefits in a way that reflects partial attainment in certain California
areas, an outcome consistent with the Clean Air Act.  This national
estimate includes full attainment in all locations except two areas of
California, which do not plan to meet the current standard by 2020, and
so have estimates for a progress point in 2020 (their “glidepath”
targets). The second set of results presents a total for California
only, which adds the 2020 progress point to the additional tons of
emissions that may be needed in California to fully attain the standards
in a year beyond 2020.

The following table shows the results of the calculation of the
glidepath targets for these two areas used in this analysis.  The
glidepath targets reflect the more stringent of two air quality targets:
 (1) the improvement assumed by 2020 to meet the current standard by
years specified below, or the improvement needed by 2020 to make linear
air quality progress between 2010 and a post-2020 attainment date for
the more stringent, alternative standards.  For Los Angeles County, the
glidepath air quality targets below for all three alternative standards
are set based on reductions needed to meet the current standard, with
the level of the current standard being achieved in 2021.  For Kern
County in the San Joaquin area, the glidepath for the .075 alternative
standard is based on achieving the level of the current standard by
2020.  For the other two alternative standards, the 2020 glide path
targets for San Joaquin are based on meeting the level of the
alternative, more stringent standards in 2025.

Table 4-5:  2020 Air Quality Glidepath Targets for LA and Kern County

Alternative Standard Level	LA County	Kern County

.075 ppm	 86.9 ppb*	84.9 ppb

.070 ppm	  86.9 ppb	82.9 ppb

.065 ppm	  86.9 ppb	79.9 ppb

* targets are expressed in ppb for clarity of presentation

As noted above, since our glidepath calculations and cost-benefit
estimates were made, the two California districts have proposed state
implementation plans for the current standard that allow the statutory
maximum 20-year period for attainment.  This in turn suggests that that
it would be reasonable solely for purposes of this analysis to assume a
20-year period for implementation of new standards.  In part because
decisions regarding our analysis were made prior to the California
proposals, the assumed time periods in this analysis for attainment by
the San Joaquin and Los Angeles areas are shorter -- both for the
current standards, and for the potential alternative standards.  This
suggests that the glidepath figures above are all more stringent than
likely implementation of the Clean Air Act, and that as a result our
analysis applies more unknown controls than would be needed in these
areas for the current and alternative standards assuming 20-year
deadlines.  Thus, our estimated 2020 costs and benefits for the two
California areas, which influence the total cost and benefit figures in
this draft RIA, are higher than would likely occur under the Clean Air
Act for the current and the potential alternative standards.  We intend
to consider this issue further in the final RIA.

4.5	National 2020 Estimates of Additional Emissions Reductions Needed to
Meet Three Potential Air Quality Targets

This analysis presents two sets of estimates: national 2020 estimates,
and California-only estimates.  This section presents the national 2020
estimates.

The national 2020 estimates assume full attainment in all locations
except two areas of California, which are assumed to meet 2020 air
quality glidepath targets on their way toward full attainment after
2020.  These 2020 national estimates present incremental tons that may
be needed to meet the three separate air quality targets were considered
as part of this analysis: 0.075 ppm and 0.070 ppm, which bound the range
that is being proposed, and a more stringent alternative of 0.065 ppm.
After the RIA control scenario, there were 50, 126, and 280 counties
above these three thresholds, respectively.  The aggregation technique
discussed above grouped these counties into 11, 20, and 29 extrapolated
ton control areas for the three targets.  The calculation of additional
tons needed does not account for the effects of ozone transport
reductions (e.g. the impact of Lake Michigan region reductions on the
OTR).  The national 2020 total estimated incremental tons that may be
needed to attain the three targets are summarized below and presented in
Tables 4.5 - 4.7.

0.075 = 467,000 tons of additional NOx control

0.070 = 1,230,000 tons of additional NOx control

0.065 = 2,535,000 tons of additional NOx control

Table 4.6   Estimated Annual Incremental Tons Needed for an 0.065 ppm
Air Quality Target in 2020 (29 areas)

Control Region	Controlling County	Post-scenario design value (ppb)
Incremental Extrapolated NOx Tons

Lake Michigan region	Kenosha WI	85.0	174,000

Ozone Transport Region	Fairfield CT	87.1	173,000

Eastern TX areas (Houston/Dallas/Beaumont)	Harris TX	90.5	166,000

VA areas (Norfolk/Richmond/Roanoke)	Suffolk City VA	80.8	149,000

Detroit, MI	Macomb MI	78.4	125,000

Phoenix, AZ	Maricopa AZ	77.6	117,000

Denver, CO	Jefferson CO	76.9	110,000

OH areas (Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati)	Geauga OH	76.5	106,000

Atlanta, GA	Fulton GA	76.0	101,000

St Louis, MO-IL	St Louis City MO	75.7	98,000

Indiana areas (Indianapolis / Evansville)	Shelby IN	74.5	86,000

LA areas (Baton Rouge/New Orleans/Shreveport)	E Baton Rouge LA	74.4
85,000

KY areas (Louisville/Paducah/Bowling Green)	Clark IN	74.0	81,000

TN areas (Knoxville/Memphis/Nashville)	Crittenden AR	72.9	70,000

NC areas (Charlotte / Raleigh)	Mecklenburg NC	72.3	64,000

Salt Lake City, UT	Salt Lake UT	72.2	63,000

Las Vegas, NV	Clark NV	72.0	61,000

FL areas (Tampa / Panama City / Pensacola)	Hillsborough FL	71.4	55,000

Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley / S Fran	Kern CA**	96.3	50,000

Jackson, MS	Jackson MS	70.6	47,000

New Mexico areas (Farmington / Las Cruces)	Dona Ana NM	70.3	44,000

OK areas (Tulsa, Marshall)	Tulsa OK	70.3	44,000

Huntington, WV-KY	Cabell WV	69.9	40,000

El Paso, TX	El Paso TX	69.3	34,000

Kansas City, MO/KS	Wyandotte KS	69.0	31,000

Little Rock, AR	Pulaski AR	68.7	28,000

Mobile AL	Mobile AL	68.6	27,000

Columbia, SC	Richland SC	66.9	10,000

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA	Los Angeles CA**	105.0	0*

*In EPA’s illustrative analysis for the PM NAAQS RIA, there were
reductions of NOx in California.  The amount of reductions assumed there
are sufficient for these counties to achieve their glidepath targets in
2020.

** Los Angeles and Kern Counties have expected attainment dates after
2020.  This analysis counts the portion of reductions assumed by this
analysis by 2020 or earlier.

Table  4.7.  Estimated Annual Incremental Tons Needed for an 0.070 ppm
air quality target in 2020 (20 areas)

Control Region	Controlling County	Post-scenario design value (ppb)
Incremental Extrapolated NOx Tons

Lake Michigan region	Kenosha WI	85.0	124,000

Ozone Transport Region	Fairfield CT	87.1	123,000

Eastern TX areas (Houston/Dallas)	Harris TX	90.5	116,000

VA areas (Norfolk/Richmond)	Suffolk City VA	80.8	99,000

Detroit, MI	Macomb MI	78.4	75,000

Phoenix, AZ	Maricopa AZ	77.6	67,000

Denver, CO	Jefferson CO	76.9	60,000

OH areas (Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati)	Geauga OH	76.5	56,000

Atlanta, GA	Fulton GA	76.0	51,000

St Louis, MO-IL	St Louis City MO	75.7	48,000

Indiana areas (Indianapolis)	Shelby IN	74.5	36,000

LA areas (Baton Rouge)	E Baton Rouge LA	74.4	35,000

KY areas (Louisville)	Clark IN	74.0	31,000

Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley	Kern CA**	96.3	20,000

TN areas (Memphis)	Crittenden AR	72.9	20,000

NC areas (Charlotte)	Mecklenburg NC	72.3	14,000

Salt Lake City, UT	Salt Lake UT	72.2	13,000

Las Vegas, NV	Clark NV	72.0	11,000

FL areas (Tampa)	Hillsborough FL	71.4	5,000

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA	Los Angeles CA**	105.0	0*

* In EPA’s illustrative analysis for the PM NAAQS RIA, there were
reductions of NOx   in California.  The amount of reductions assumed
there are sufficient for these counties to achieve their glidepath
targets in 2020.

** Los Angeles and Kern Counties have expected attainment dates after
2020.  This analysis counts the portion of reductions assumed by this
analysis by 2020 or earlier.

Table 4.8.  Estimated Annual Incremental Tons Needed for an 0.075 ppm
air quality target in 2020 (11 areas)

Control Region	Controlling County	Post-scenario design value (ppb)
Incremental Extrapolated NOx Tons

Lake Michigan region	Kenosha WI	85.0	74,000

Ozone Transport Region	Fairfield CT	87.1	73,000

Eastern TX areas (Houston/Dallas)	Harris TX	90.5	66,000

VA areas (Norfolk)	Suffolk City VA	80.8	49,000

Detroit, MI	Macomb MI	78.4	25,000

Phoenix, AZ	Maricopa AZ	77.6	17,000

Denver, CO	Jefferson CO	76.9	10,000

OH areas (Cleveland)	Geauga OH	76.5	6,000

Atlanta, GA	Fulton GA	76.0	1,000

Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley	Kern CA**	96.3	0*

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA	Los Angeles CA**	105.0	0*

*In EPA’s illustrative analysis for the PM NAAQS RIA, there were
reductions of NOx in California.  The amount of reductions assumed there
are sufficient for these counties to achieve their glidepath targets in
2020.

** Los Angeles and Kern Counties have expected attainment dates after
2020.  This analysis counts the portion of reductions assumed by this
analysis by 2020 or earlier.

4.6  	Estimates of Additional Tons Needed for Three Potential Air
Quality Targets (California only, post-2020 Attainment)

The second estimates presented are for California only.  Tables 4.8 –
4.10 below, present the estimated tons needed to attain California’s
glidepath targets in 2020 and the additional increment of tons that may
be needed for full attainment in a year beyond 2020

Table 4.8   California:  Estimated Tons Needed For Attainment 0.065 ppm
air quality target (beyond 2020)

Control Region	Controlling County	Post-scenario design value (ppb)	Total
Extrapolated NOx Tons	Glidepath Extrapolated NOx Tons	Remaining tons
needed (2020- attainment)	“Credit” tons from mobile rules

2020-2030	Tons needed after mobile reductions

Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley / S Fran	Kern CA	96.3	190,000	50,000
140,000	23,300	116,700

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA	Los Angeles CA	105.0	188,000	0
188,000	38,500	149,500

Table 4.9  California:  Estimated Tons Needed for Attainment of 0.070
ppm air quality target (beyond 2020)

Control Region	Controlling County	Post-scenario design value (ppb)	Total
Extrapolated NOx Tons	Glidepath  Extrapolated NOx Tons	Remaining tons
needed (2020- attainment)	“Credit” tons from mobile rules

2020-2030	Tons needed after mobile reductions

Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley	Kern CA	96.3	140,000	20,000	120,000
23,300	96,700

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA	Los Angeles CA	105.0	138,000	0
138,000	38,500	99,500

Table 4.10 California:  Estimated Tons Needed for Attainment of 0.075
ppm air quality target (beyond 2020)

Control Region	Controlling County	Post-scenario design value (ppb)	Total
Extrapolated NOx Tons	Glidepath Extrapolated NOx Tons	Remaining tons
needed (2020- attainment)	“Credit” tons from mobile rules

2020-2030	Tons needed after mobile reductions

Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley	Kern CA	96.3	90,000	0	90,000	23,300
66,700

Los Angeles South Coast Air Basin, CA	Los Angeles CA	105.0	88,000	0
88,000	38,500	49,500

 The negative value of minimum impact ratio in the Lake Michigan area
indicates that ozone levels at one monitoring site are projected to
increase slightly with 90% local NOx control.  This 'ozone disbenefit'
has been projected by the model to occur in a very few, highly
localized, areas with large amounts of NOx emissions.  This lone
negative value is not representative of regional impact ratios."

  The controlling county is the county within an area whose design value
is farthest away from attaining the air quality target.

 The lone negative value of impact ratio occurs in the Lake Michigan
area and indicates that ozone levels at that site are projected to
increase slightly in response to the RIA control scenario.  This 'ozone
disbenefit' has previously been projected by the model to occur in a
very few, highly localized, areas with large amounts of NOx emissions.
This lone negative value is not representative of regional impact
ratios.

 Proposed State Strategy for California's State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for the New PM2.5 and 8-Hour Ozone Standard, California Air
Resources Board web page,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/2007sip/2007sip.html, update May 30,
2007.

 62,000 tons was estimated by subtracting the California county level
Onroad and Nonroad 2030 NOx and VOC emissions from their totals in 2020.
 These differences were estimated for counties listed under the CA
control regions (Los Angeles and Kern County) detailed in Table 4.4.
(Los Angeles accounted for 38,500 tons, while Kern accounted for 23,300
tons, for a total of 61,800 rounded to 62,000).  In order to estimate
total emissions for both VOC and NOx, VOC emission reductions for these
counties were adjusted using the adjustment factor detailed earlier in
the chapter (4 VOC tons = 1 NOx ton).  Given that the San Joaquin and
South Coast air quality management districts have adopted plans allowing
until June 2024 (20 years from designation) to meet the current
standard, EPA believes that it would be consistent for purposes of this
analysis to assume a 20-year period for attainment of a new more
stringent standard.  If designations occurred in 2010, the 20-year
attainment period would end in 2030.  Significant emissions reductions
from implementation of mobile source rules are anticipated between 2020
and 2030.  Consistent with the non-EGU growth assumptions for the rest
of the RIA, non-EGU emissions are assumed to stay constant. EGU
emissions are a small fraction of the California inventory and are
assumed not to significantly affect the change in the state’s
emissions between 2020 and 2030.  Accordingly, we have used the
difference between 2020 and 2030 mobile emissions to estimate the
post-2020 emissions reductions that will assist the two California areas
in reaching attainment.

 Assumptions made for the purposes of this analysis were made prior to
two California areas adopting SIPs which assumed attainment by June
2024.   For purposes of this analysis, San Joaquin (including Kern
County) was assumed to meet the current standard by 2020 (consistent
with the analysis assumption for most areas), and South Coast (including
Los Angeles County) was assumed to meet the current standard in 2021
(the maximum attainment date of a severe-17 area is in June 2021).
Because the San Joaquin and South Coast air districts have adopted SIPs
with later attainment dates for the current standard,, we recognize that
the assumptions used in this analysis are not likely to be the actual
years of attainment for these two areas.

 While the proposed rule takes comment on a range of alternate standards
from 0.060 ppm to 0.084 ppm, the RIA analysis focused on a more limited
range

 PAGE

4- PAGE   1