APPENDIX I CLEAN AIR STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT SAN ANTONIO EAC REGION ATTAINMENT DEMONSTRATION MARCH 2004 I 2 Appendix I Table of Contents Page Introduction                               I 4 Federal and State Rules                        . I 4 National LEV Program                       I 4 On board Refueling Vapor Recovery               .. I 5 Low Sulfur Gasoline                        I 6 New Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Rates  ..            . I 6 TAC Chapter 106( T): Surface Preparation               I 6 TAC Chapter 115( C)( 2): Filling of Gasoline Storage Vessels ( Stage I) for Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities            .. I 8 Rate of Progress Control Factors.                  I 9 TAC Chapter 117( B)( 4): Cement Kilns                I 11 Regional Rules.                   ..        .. I 11 Local Strategy Development                        I 13 Development of Potential Clean Air Measures          ..  I 13 Selection of Potential Clean Air Measures             .. I 13 Evaluation of Potential Clean Air Strategies                  I 14 Screen Cell Design Value Scaling                    . I 15 Local Clean Air Strategies                 ..       I 18 Lower Reid Vapor Pressure ( RVP)                .. I 19 Challenges                       .. I 19 Resolution of Challenges: RVP                I 19 Stage I Vapor Recovery                     . I 20 Degreasing Controls                      ... I 20 Challenges                       .. I 21 Resolution of Challenges: Degreasing Equipment Controls    I 22 Design Values             ..             I 23 Conclusion             .                 . I 23 DRAFT I 3 Appendix I List of Tables Page Table I 1 ORVR Reductions for the SAER Counties, 2007; Percent Reductions and Tons per Day ( TPD) Reduced               ..         I 5 Table I 2 VOC Emissions in the SAER due to Chapter 106 Degreasing Controls                 .... I 7 Table I 3 2007 Emissions from Tanker Unloading in San Antonio EAC Region                 I 8 Table I 4 Emission Reduction due to Stage I Rule in the 95 county Region                   ..   .. I 9 Table I 5 Emission Reductions in the SAER due to Stage I Rule at 125,000 gallons Throughput, 2007                I 9 Table I 6 Rate of Progress Control Factors   .. .      .. I 10 Table I 7 2007 SAER County Area Source Emissions Using ROP Factoring                      . I 10 Table I 8 Potential Control Measures Selected for Modeling    .. I 14 Table I 9 Modeling Sequence Employed in Evaluating Potential Clean Air Strategies on an Individual Basis ..         .. I 16 Table I 10 Modeling Sequence Employed in Evaluating Potential Clean Air Strategies in Various Combinations          I 17 Table I 11 List of Clean Air Strategies Recommended for SIP  .... . I 18 Table I 12 Design Values for the CAMS Stations After Clean Air Strategy Analysis           ..     ....... I 23 DRAFT I 4 INTRODUCTION Prior to the establishment of Early Action Compacts in 2002, areas that violated the NAAQS were subjected to state and federal law as dictated in the Clean Air Act. The Early Action Compact ( EAC) has allowed areas that violated the new 8 hour NAAQS to develop plans that will solve their air quality problems based on local air quality analysis and planning. Local signatories of the EAC can select the clean air measures that will be implemented.

Investigation of emissions reducing strategies is a necessary component of the EAC. The Clean Air Plan and the Early Action Compact require the development and modeling of emission reduction control strategies using the most currently available tools. This is done in order to support the ongoing efforts by local authorities and citizens for maintaining, or attaining, federal air quality standards. The following sections describe multiple strategies that will assist in reaching attainment. Strategies noted below will be implemented by 2007 or are already implemented on the federal, state, or local level.

FEDERAL AND STATE RULES The on going efforts by EPA and TCEQ to protect and preserve natural resources and human health has led to the development of various regulations controlling emissions in future years. In some cases, enforcement began as early as the year 2000. These rules are to be fully implemented by 2007. The emission reductions as a result of the following strategies were accounted for in the photochemical model when the 2007 future base case projection was developed. The following sections describe the state and federal rules expected to influence the San Antonio EAC region's air quality.

National LEV Program The National Low Emission Vehicle ( LEV) program was initiated in 1998 as a voluntary program to make new cars significantly cleaner burning than previously mandated by federal regulations. Substantial pollution reductions would be achieved with this program while at the same time providing automotive industry flexibility to meet program standards.

When states and automotive manufacturers opted into the program, the standards were enforced as federal vehicle standards. In return for manufacturer participation, the EPA agreed to provide regulatory stability and provide emissions standards based on a combination of California and federal motor vehicle standards.

The program is projected to reduce NOx in 2007 by 496 tons per day on a national level and allows emission reductions without the need of a state by state adoption of California's motor vehicle regulations. ( USEPA, 1997) The rule was placed into effect in the northeastern states for the 1999 vehicle model year and went into effect on a national level for 2001 vehicles. ( USEPA, 1998a) Since the national LEV program became effective in Bexar County with model year 2001, this program is included in the 2007 photochemical model runs.

The Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI) calculated credits for this program. The TTI created the on road mobile source modeling emissions inventories for 1999, 2007 and 2012. Their technical report is available as Appendix C, On Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Development ( TTI Report), of this document set. Using MOBILE6 model, TTI modeled all federal motor vehicle control programs in its work. DRAFT I 5 On board Refueling Vapor Recovery Onboard refueling vapor recovery ( ORVR) is an emission control system found on vehicles that inhibits the emission of fuel vapors from a vehicle's gas tank during refueling. Within the gas tank and fill pipe of a vehicle, an activated carbon packed canister absorbs fuel vapors during refueling. When the engine is operating, the canister directs gasoline vapors into the engine intake manifold to be used as fuel.

It is projected that ORVR controls will allow a 300,000 to 400,000 ton per year reduction of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) nationwide. ORVR systems are also projected to provide an annual fuel savings of $ 2 to $ 4 per vehicle for the consumer. ( USEPA, 1998b)

The Schedule for implementation of ORVR is:   Automobiles: 40% of 1998, 80% of 1999, and 100% of 2000 and beyond models will be equipped with ORVR.   " Light Duty Trucks" and similar vehicles: 40% of 2001, 80% of 2002, and 100% of 2003 and beyond models will be equipped with ORVR.   " Medium Duty Trucks" and similar vehicles: 40% of 2004, 80% of 2005, and 100% of 2006 and beyond models will be equipped with ORVR.   Heavy Duty Trucks and other Vehicles: At this time, it is not required in these vehicles.

To estimate the effect of ORVR, the NO CLEAN AIR ACT command was used in MOBILE6 to model vehicle emissions as if the Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 had not been implemented. MOBILE6 assumes that the Clean Air Act ( CAA) Amendments of 1990 did occur and includes a number of vehicle and fuel requirements mandated by the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments in its forecasts and analyses of future year. These include Tier1, low emissions vehicle ( LEV), and Tier2 tailpipe exhaust emission standards, and new evaporative emission test procedure requirements.

The following table indicates the exact reduction/ adjustment values for VOC emissions for each county in San Antonio region.

Table I 1. ORVR Reductions for the SAER Counties, 2007; Percent Reductions and Tons Per Day ( TPD) Reduced Bexar Comal Guadalupe Wilson Date Percent Reductions TPD Percent Reductions TPD Percent Reductions TPD Percent Reductions TPD Sept. 13 62.3% 7.26 62.7% 0.39 60.3% 0.41 59.7% 0.15 Sept. 14 62.3% 7.26 62.7% 0.39 60.3% 0.41 59.7% 0.15 Sept. 15 62.3% 7.26 62.7% 0.39 60.3% 0.41 59.7% 0.15 Sept. 16 62.3% 7.26 62.7% 0.39 60.3% 0.41 59.7% 0.15 Sept. 17 63.7% 7.42 63.5% 0.39 61.5% 0.42 60.7% 0.15 Sept. 18 64.3% 4.80 64.4% 0.26 62.0% 0.27 61.6% 0.10 Sept. 19 64.0% 2.43 63.7% 0.13 61.4% 0.14 61.1% 0.05 Sept. 20 62.3% 7.26 62.7% 0.39 60.3% 0.41 59.7% 0.15 For the study of the effects of absence of CAA, AACOG ran a 2007 base year with and without the effects of CAA and calculated the differences in the amounts of VOC for 4 DRAFT I 6 counties in the SAER and for each days of the week. The amounts of VOC in 2007 for each modeled day and for each county in our study area was higher by approximately 60% when the CAA requirements in MOBIE6 were disabled. This reduction percentage was reflected in the emission inventory for the photochemical model to account for the presence of the effects of CAA in the year 2007. The reductions were applied to the Vehicle refueling category ( SCC 2501060100)

Low Sulfur Gasoline In 2000, the EPA enacted a ruling supporting the production of a gasoline with a lower sulfur content. Such a strategy was developed because sulfur in the gasoline reduces the effectiveness of a vehicle's emission control system. Gasoline refiners would be required to produce gasoline with an average sulfur level of 30 ppm by 2004, down from the sulfur content average of 300 ppm. ( USEPA, 1999) In 2006, refiners will be required to produce gasoline with a 30 ppm average sulfur level with a maximum cap of 80 ppm. Gasoline produced for sale in parts of the Western U. S. will be allowed to meet a 150 ppm refinery average and a 300 ppm cap through 2006 but will have to meet the 30 ppm average/ 80 ppm cap by 2007. ( USEPA, 2000)

The Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI) calculated credits for this program. The TTI created the on road mobile source modeling emissions inventories for 1999, 2007 and 2012. Their technical report is available as Appendix C, On Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Development ( TTI Report), of this document set. Using MOBILE6 model, TTI modeled all federal motor vehicle control programs in its work.

New Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle Rates In October 1997, the EPA promulgated a new combined emission standard for emissions of oxides of nitrogen ( NOx) and non methane hydrocarbons ( NMHC) from model year 2004 and later heavy duty diesel engines used in trucks and buses. This new standard will lead to a 50 percent reduction in NOx in the new engines appearing in 2004, as compared to the 1998 2003 model year engines meeting the current NOx standard. By 2020, it is projected that 1.1 million tons of ozone precursors will be reduced in one year nationally. ( USEPA, 1997) Since these standards will apply to the 2007 fleet, the input files for the 2007 MOBILE runs included the appropriate emission rate changes in the Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicle class. ( USEPA, 1998c)

The Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI) calculated credits for this program. The TTI created the on road mobile source modeling emissions inventories for 1999, 2007 and 2012. Their technical report is available as Appendix C, On Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Development ( TTI Report), of this document set. Using MOBILE6 model, TTI modeled all federal motor vehicle control programs in its work.

Texas Administrative Code ( TAC), Chapter 106 ( T): Surface Preparation Permits By Rule § 106.1 identifies facilities or changes within facilities that have been determined not make a significant contribution of air pollution. Subchapter T of Chapter 106 addresses degreasing units that may be subject to permit by rule. Permits By Rule § 106.454 states that degreasing units, regardless of the county in which it is located, shall meet the requirements of Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds § 115.412 415. Since this rule was promulgated in 1994, degreasing units built on or after 1994 are subject to adhering to Chapter 115 specifications.

Solvent degreasing is the physical process of using organic solvents to remove grease, fats, oils, wax or soil from various metal, glass, or plastic items. The types of equipment used in DRAFT I 7 this method are categorized as cold cleaners, open top vapor degreasers, or conveyorized degreasers. Nonaqueous solvents such as petroleum distillates, chlorinated hydrocarbons, ketones, and alcohols are used. Solvent selection is based on the solubility of the substance to be removed and on the toxicity, flammability, flash point, evaporation rate, boiling point, cost, and several other properties of the solvent. The following bullets are examples of requirements for controlling degreasing equipment:

  Cold Cleaning Machines: A cover shall be provided for each cleaner which shall be kept close whenever parts are not being handled in the cleaner. The system shall be equipped with a freeboard that provides a ratio equal to or greater than 0.7, or a water cover ( solvent must be insoluble in and heavier than water).

  Open top Vapor Degreasing: A cover that can be opened and closed easily without disturbing the vapor zone. A freeboard provides a ratio equal to or greater than 0.75 and, if the degreaser opening is greater than 10 ft2 ( 1m2), a powered cover.

  Conveyorized Degreasing: A properly sized refrigerated chiller, a drying tunnel of other means, such as rotating ( tumbling) basket to prevent solvent liquid or vapor carry out; a condenser flow switch and thermostat which will shut off sump heat if the condenser coolant is not circulating or if the condenser coolant discharge temperature exceeds the solvent manufacturer's recommendation.

Chapter 106 affects degreasing units throughout Texas and subjects emission controls to the units as specified in Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds § 115.412 415, therefore, a reduction of 85% of VOC emissions between 1999 to 2007. Since Chapter 106 rules was promulgated in 1994, it allows for some degreasing equipment emission credit for time periods before 1999; however for the SAER, credits were calculated for the time period between 1999 and 2007. This calculation is described as following:

Unregulated 2007 Degreasing Emissions   Base 1999 Degreasing Emissions = Growth from 1999 to 2007 Growth from 1999 to 2007 * 0.85 Reduction Factor = Emission Reductions due to Chapter 106 Regulation 1999 Degreasing Emissions + Emission reductions = 2007 Regulated Degreasing Emissions Table I 2 indicates the amount of reductions in the 2007 degreasing emissions resulted from the above calculations in the 4 county SAER.

Table I 2. VOC Emissions in the SAER due to Chapter 106 Degreasing Controls 2007 Unregulated Degreasing Emissions 1999 Unregulated Degreasing Emissions Growth from 1999 to 2007 2007 Emission Reductions due to Chapter 106 2007 Regulated Degreasing Emissions County Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Bexar 14.03 8.99 5.04 4.28 9.74 Comal 0.85 0.54 0.30 0.26 0.59 Guadalupe 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 Wilson 0.20 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.14 Total 15.09 9.67 5.42 4.61 10.48 DRAFT I 8 TAC Chapter 115( C)( 2): Filling of Gasoline Storage Vessels ( Stage I) for Motor Vehicle Fuel Dispensing Facilities Stage I vapor recovery systems are designed to control the escape of gasoline vapors from gasoline storage tanks. The vapors escape by being displaced by liquid gasoline unloaded from refueling trucks. Such systems have shown to reduce hydrocarbon emission by 98%. The vapors are captured by a vapor return hose, which is connected to the storage tank and the refueling truck.

As a tank of volatile fuel such as gasoline is gradually emptied, the empty space will be occupied by vapors of the fuel, or by a mixture of air and vapors, if an inlet air vent is provided. When a tanker truck delivers fuel to a gas station, the new fuel entering the underground tank would force accumulated gasoline vapors out of the tank into the air. With the Stage I vapor recovery system, vapors are forced out of the underground storage tank into the tanker truck through a vapor recovery line. The recovered vapors in the tanker truck can then be recycled.

Gasoline vapors are present in the air space of the storage tank. When the tank is refilled, the vapors are displaced by liquid gasoline and can enter the atmosphere, thus contributing to the formation of ozone. Stage I vapor recovery systems are designed to control the escape of these vapors, and can achieve a 98% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions once they are put into use. The vapors are captured by a vapor return hose, which is connected to the storage tank and the gasoline delivery truck. Once captured, the vapors are stored in a vapor cargo department in the gasoline delivery trucks and transported to the refinery for recovery or incineration Currently, Stage I systems are required in the San Antonio EAC Region for facilities that dispense 125,000 or more gallons/ month of gasoline, as stipulated in Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds, § 115.221 229. The effectiveness of the Stage I vapor recovery system strategy was measured by calculating the current release of hydrocarbon emissions due to tank unloading for the San Antonio MSA. These emissions would be eliminated if all of the gasoline stations in the region were required to have Stage I vapor recovery system. The projected amount of VOC emission from unloading tankers within the San Antonio EAC Region for the year 2007 is 9.99 tons per a day as displayed in table I 3.

Table I 3. 2007 Emissions from Tanker Unloading in San Antonio EAC Region ( AACOG, 2001) County VOC tons/ day VOC tons/ year Bexar 8.81 2750.89 Comal 0.47 145.81 Guadalupe 0.52 160.78 Wilson 0.19 58.51 Total SA MSA 9.99 3115.99 However, this projection does not take into account the use of Stage I vapor recovery systems for throughput greater than 125,000 gallons per month, which is already in place in the San Antonio EAC Region. In order to refine these projections with the results of the 125,000 gallons/ month rule, the results of a previous analysis for the 95 counties east of I 35 were used. The results of this study are displayed in Table I 4. DRAFT I 9 Table I 4. Emission Reduction due to Stage I Rule in the 95 county Region ( AACOG, 1999)

Gasoline Throughput Gallons/ Month Number of Gas Stations % of Total Stations VOC Reductions Tons/ Year % of Total VOC Reductions Less than 10,000 1,607 18.6% 0 0.0% 10,000   25,000 2,436 28.3% 1,210 11.8% 25,000   50,000 2,287 26.5% 2,480 24.1% 50,000  125,000 1,599 18.6% 3,510 34.1% Greater than 125,000 691 8.0% 3,090 30.0% Total 8,620 100% 10,290 100%

As displayed in Table I 4, facilities with 125,000 gallons per month throughput, which have their Stage I systems in place, can reduce the VOC emissions by 30%. Removing this amount of reduction from the total projected amount of VOC emissions in SA MSA from tanker truck unloading results in bringing the 2007 projected estimates down to 6.99 tons per day. This calculation is shown in the formula.

2007 SAER total VOC X Percentage of VOC Reduction = VOC Reduction, Tons/ Year 9.99 X 0.30 = 6.99 The following table indicates the exact reduction/ adjustment values for VOC emissions for each county in San Antonio region.

Table I 5. Emission Reductions in the SAER due to Stage I Rule at 125,000 gallons Throughput, 2007 Unregulated 2007 Emissions Emission Reductions due to Stage I Rule 2007 Emission with Stage I Rule County Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Bexar 8.81 2.64 6.17 Comal 0.47 0.14 0.33 Guadalupe 0.52 0.15 0.37 Wilson 0.19 0.06 0.13 Total 9.99 2.99 7.00 Note that, as a locally preferred air quality control strategy, the Stage I at 25,000 gallons per month throughput has been discussed in the Local Clean Air Strategies section of this appendix.

Rate of Progress Control Factors Rate of Progress ( ROP) control factors were also used on several categories, as directed by TCEQ and ENVIRON. Table I 6 shows applicable ROP control factors for the AACOG 2007 emissions inventory ( ENVIRON, 2001). These control factors account for the amount of emission reductions due to use of improved techniques and/ or implementation of new regulations. DRAFT I 10 Table I 6. Rate of Progress Control Factors Category SCC Control Factor Leaking Underground Tanks 2660000000 0.0 Architectural Coatings 2401001000 0.8 Traffic Markings 2401008000 0.8 High Performance Maintenance 2401100000 0.8 Other Specific Purpose Coatings 2401200000 0.8 All Solvent Types 2465000000 0.8 Personal Care Solvents 2465100000 0.8 Household Solvents 2465200000 0.8 TSDF's 2640000000 0.07 Automotive Aftermarket Coatings 2465400000 0.8 Adhesives & Sealants 2465600000 0.8 To forecast the amount of emission for each area source category, the emission amount for each category in 1999 EI was reduced by the given 2007 and a 2012 projection factors. The results were then factored by the ROP factors to account for improvements in applications techniques and changes in regulations. To give a demonstration of this procedure, the following table, which is prepared for the 2007 Bexar County, is presented in this appendix. The last column in this table indicates the net amount of change between before and after application of ROP factors. The table includes the results of the following calculation.

Category Specific Base Year 1999 Emissions X ROP Factor = Emission Reductions due to ROP Controls Category Specific Base Year 1999 Emissions  Emission Reductions due to ROP Controls = 2007 emissions Table I 7. 2007 SAER County Area Source Emissions Using ROP Factoring Base Year 1999 Emissions Emission Reductions due to ROP Controls 2007 Emissions with Controls County Tons/ Day Percentage Reductions due to ROP Controls Tons/ Day Tons/ Day Architectural Coatings 11.10 20% 2.22 8.88 Traffic Markings 0.03 20% 0.01 0.02 High Performance Maintenance 3.41 20% 0.68 2.73 Other Spec. Purpose Coatings 2.62 20% 0.52 2.10 Personal Care Solvents 4.21 20% 0.84 3.37 Household Solvents 2.79 20% 0.56 2.23 Automotive Solvents 1.80 20% 0.36 1.44 Leaking Tanks 0.71 100% 0.71 0.00 DRAFT I 11 TAC Chapter 117 ( B)( 4): Cement Kilns Chapter 117 addresses various regulations on the control of air pollution from NOx. Subchapter B, Division 4 addresses emission regulations of various cement kilns. Regulations stipulated by Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds § § 117.260, 117.261, 117.265, 117.273, 117.279, and 117.283, which affect the cement industry in Texas were accounted for in the attainment demonstration.

REGIONAL RULES Many of the rules applied to the Houston/ Galveston and Beaumont/ Port Arthur and other non attainment areas have regional implications. The emission control strategies implemented in these areas would affect the ambient air quality in the San Antonio region. Photochemical models have indicated that emissions from eastern parts of Texas affect emission levels in other downwind parts of Texas. Information about these rules and regulations were collected from various regulating agencies and organized into electronic files and used as input data for the photochemical model runs to better reflect emission reductions due to the implementation of these regional emission control policies. The followings are descriptions, provided by TCEQ, of these files.

HGA's NOx cap packet: This packet provides a revision to the cap on HGA's NOx emissions. It is to be applied to year 2000 emissions. This packet also includes 3.8 tpd of reductions due to the Emission Reduction Credit ( ERC) and Discrete Emission Reduction Credit ( DERC) programs for the HGA as of October 14, 2002.

BPA's bank packet: This control packet applies the banked ERC and DERC VOC total of 3.3 tpd and NOx total of 29.2 to all of the 2000 Aug. 29 base4a Non Electric Generating Units ( NEGU) totaling 60.3 tpd VOC and 92.7 tpd NOx in BPA, except for Special Inventory sources and those with Science Coordinating Committee, beginning with TAC Chapter 101 and Chapter 201.

HGA bank packet: This control packet applies the banked ERC and DERC VOC total of 17.9 tpd to all of the 2000 Aug. 29 base4a scenario for NEGUs in HGA totaling 176.5 tpd VOC. Except for special inventory sources and those with the Science Coordinating Committee, beginning with TAC Chapter 101 and Chapter 201.

Tier3 Emission Specifications for Attainment Demonstration: This packet takes the HGA's EGUs from the ~ 90 revised ESAD level to the ~ 80% of Business Coalition for Clean Air alternate ESAD level. Hence, this packet is meant to be applied, in addition to the revised (~ 90%) ESAD level. And the revised packet was to be applied to the HGA 30 day highest heat input packet. The " auxiliary boilers" are located at the top section of this file.

Revised ESAD: This packet is to be applied after the control " HGegu30day" packet. It corrects areas whose ESAD rates went from .01 to .02 and from .03 to .04. This packet represents the future base EGU controls for the entire domain.

SB7 NOx Rule: This packet represents the future base EGU controls for the entire domain. It includes 50% reduction for 95 county area   attainment counties East of I 35 and I 37. The file also addresses controls for various states affected by the NOx SIP rule, including Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Missouri. DRAFT I 12 Tier1for BPA: Developed on 10/ 15/ 02, this control packet for BPA EGUs ESAD includes 0.10 lbNOx/ mmBtu. The calculation is based on the percentage reductions in the 1997 annual Acid Rain Scorecard.

Tier 2 for DFW: Developed on 0/ 15/ 02, in this control packet Handley utility plant's unit 5 was changed to match the 1997 EGUs. This packet accounts for the new control on EGU boilers with limit of 0.033 lb/ MMBTU for TXU, and 0.06 lb/ MMBtu for plants in Garland and Denton. The small boilers at Denton and Garland get controlled based on their AP 42 emission rate 0.28 controlled to 0.06 lb/ MMBt. This gives 79% control. TXU gets 89% control, Garland gets 72%, and Denton gets 86% control for an overall control of 88%. On 4/ 19/ 2000 the stack and point numbers for HANDLEY 5 had been changed so that it would work in " cntlem" file. On 4/ 19/ 2000 a second boiler was added to the Mountain Creek 3B unit.

Milan County CO Emission: Control factors set to provide 28.50 TCEQ tpd to 26.66 tpd. for NEGU point sources in Milan County, 48331. This control package was provided by CAPCO. DRAFT I 13 LOCAL STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT Development of Potential Clean Air Measures Control strategies aimed at reducing emissions from transportation sources, area sources, and point sources were considered and analyzed based on their emission reducing capacity and cost of implementation. The list of emission reducing strategies was compiled by gathering information on control measures currently employed in the Dallas Ft. Worth and Houston/ Galveston nonattainment areas and studying measures that are recommended by the TCEQ, or are employed in other states. The control measure description, emission reduction associated with the measure, and the cost for the measure to be implemented were used in developing the list of potential clean air measures.

Throughout the duration of selection process, AACOG's technical staff continuously updated emission reductions and cost analysis for relevancy to the region's air quality. Updates to the emission reduction estimates and cost estimates were performed by various means and methods. Emission factors were often updated through the use of EPA approved models, such as MOBILE6 or the NONROAD model. Frequent revisions were necessary due to the updated data provided by TCEQ or other near nonattainment areas that would improve model performance thus providing realistic outputs.

The list of potential clean air strategies was provided to the AIR Technical Committee for review and additional input, as agencies may/ may not be affected by the suggested control measures.

Selection of Potential Clean Air Measures The AIR Technical Committee reviewed approximately 100 strategies aimed at reducing emissions and assisting the SAER in reaching attainment of the 8 hour ozone standard. The strategies were assessed based on the criteria of creditability ( quantifiable, enforceable, and permanent) and effectiveness at reducing ozone precursors while being cost efficient.

The AIR Technical Committee met twice a month to discuss various technical issues and review the list of control strategies. The committee considered several factors when analyzing various control strategies. These factors included whether the strategies were currently implemented in the area, the emission reducing capacity in the San Antonio MSA, and possible costs associated with strategy implementation. The AIR Technical Committee provided draft copies and reports of the progress of control strategy selection to the AIR Executive Committee during the selection process. Whenever necessary, the AIR Executive Committee would then provide comments to the AIR Technical Committee in regards to their selections. Table I 8 lists the strategies that fulfilled the prescribed criteria and were feasible for the San Antonio area. Also, selected control strategies were combined to enhance the potential emission reductions. DRAFT I 14 Table I 8. Potential Control Measures Selected for Modeling Control Measure Ton per Day ( NOx+ VOC) Reduction Cost per Ton Acceleration Simulation Mode Test with On Board Diagnostics Systems Test ( OBD II) 13.33 $ 10,620 Two Speed Idle Test ( TSI) together with OBD II 10.42 $ 9,425 OBD II 8.52 $ 8,419 Lower 7.0 RVP for all counties east of I35 and I37 corridor 3.13 for the SAER only Not Calculated Lower 7.0 RVP 3.13 $ 11,402 Lower 7.2 RVP 2.15 $ 7,717 Stage I vapor recovery at 25,000 for all counties east of I35 and I37 corridor 5.81 for the SAER only $ 4,471 Stage I vapor recovery at 50,000 3.41 $ 2,894 Stage I vapor recovery at 25,000 5.81 $ 4,471 Degreasing solvents* 14.34 $ 1,400 Degreasing equipment* 12.83 $ 0 Wood spray technique 0.131 $ 0 Removal of 5.93 tons of NOx from Spruce 1 power plant** 5.93 Not Calculated***

* Calculated based on the assumption that Chapter 106 was not implemented in the SAER ** Was used to simulate the ozone levels with the shutting down of a power plant in this location *** Rough estimates indicate that shutting down a coal power plant would be many factors more expensive then any other control strategy considered on this list EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL CLEAN AIR STRATEGIES The elimination of inadequate control measures resulted in a list of feasible and applicable control measures that were to be evaluated through performance of the photochemical model. The strategies that were to be evaluated in this manner were thought to be most effective in reducing emissions in the San Antonio area. At the request of the Air Improvement Resources ( AIR) Committee, the strategies previously listed in table I 8 were evaluated in the photochemical model 2007 demonstration. Tables I 9 and I 10 detail the sequence of modeling runs when the strategies were evaluated. DRAFT I 15 This evaluation of the strategies allowed local officials and technical staff to understand the effectiveness of each individual strategy. Understanding the effects of the control measures in this manner would allow officials to formulate possible combinations of control measures that would best affect San Antonio's air quality.

Screen Cell Design Value Scaling Since the modeled attainment test provides no indication of future ozone concentrations at locations without monitors, the EPA recommends a supplementary screening analysis to support an attainment demonstration. The predicted 8 hour daily maximum for the SA region exceeded the highest predicted 8 hour daily maximum near a monitor by more than 5% on only two day of the episode ( 15th & 16th). Since the 5% threshold was not exceeded on " 50% or more modeled days," a screening test is unnecessary for demonstration purposes. DRAFT I 16 Table I 9. Modeling Sequence Employed in Evaluating Potential Clean Air Strategies on an Individual Basis Control Strategy Emission Control Options Base Case SA1 SA2 SA3 SA4 SA5 SA6 SA7 SA8 SA9 SA10 SA11 SA12 ASM with OBDII 4 TSI with OBDII 4 OBDII 4 RVP 7.0 ( Regional) 95 RVP 7.0 4 On Road Sources RVP 7.2 4 Stage I ( 50K) 4 Stage I ( 25K) 4 Stage I ( 25K Regional) 95 Degreasing Solvent* 4 Degreasing Equipment* 4 Area Sources Wood Spray Technique Point Sources Removal of 5.93 tons of NOx from Spruce 1 Power Plant 1 CAMS 23 adjusted 2007 Design Value** 84.52 84.14 84.22 84.30 84.42 84.44 84.46 84.44 84.40 84.33 84.22 84.26 84.42 * Does not include Chapter 106 controls in future case ** Adjusted to final Base Case model ( numbers are not truncated to show differences)

Key: " 4"   4 county San Antonio EAC region " 95"   95 county area east of I 35 and I 37 ( not including Houston, BPA or Dallas)

" 1"   Bexar County only DRAFT I 17 Table I 10. Modeling Sequence Employed in Evaluating Potential Clean Air Strategies in Various Combinations Control Strategy Emission Control Options Base Case SA13 SA14 SA15 SA16 SA17 SA18 SA19 SA20 SA21 SA22 ASM with OBDII 4 TSI with OBDII 4 OBDII 4 4 RVP 7.0 ( Regional)

RVP 7.0 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 On Road Sources RVP 7.2 4 4 4 Stage I ( 50K) 4 4 4 4 4 Stage I ( 25K) 4 4 4 4 4 Stage I ( 25K Regional)

Degreasing Solvent* 4 Degreasing Equipment* 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Area Sources Wood Spray Technique 4 4 4 Point Sources Removal of 5.93 tons of NOx from Spruce 1 Power Plant CAMS 23 adjusted 2007 Design Value** 84.52 84.17 84.07 84.10 83.70 84.07 83.62 83.83 84.01 84.01 84.04 * Does not include Chapter 106 controls in future case ** Adjusted to final Base Case model ( numbers are not truncated to show differences)

Key: " 4"   4 county San Antonio EAC region " 95"   95 county area east of I 35 and I 37 ( not including Houston, BPA or Dallas)

" 1"   Bexar County only DRAFT I 18 Based on the technical analysis of the various clean air strategies and the performance of the 1999 photochemical model for the 2007 projections, several strategies were recommended by technical staff to the AIR Technical Committee. The 2007 projection of the 1999 episode was demonstrating an 8 hour ozone slightly below the 8 hour NAAQS of 85 ppb. Therefore, the strategies of low RVP gasoline of either 7.0 or 7.2, the implementation of Stage I vapor recovery on area service stations that dispense at least 25,000 gallons or 50,000 gallons, and degreasing controls were recommended for inclusion to the Clean Air Plan. The following table lists the recommended clean air strategies by the AIR Technical Committee. The list was subsequently recommended to the AIR Executive/ Advisory Committee and received full endorsement by its body.

Table I 11. List of Clean Air Strategies Recommended for SIP AIR Tech Recommends AIR Committee Recommends VOC + NOx Reductions Clean Air Strategy Yes No Yes No Cost Per Ton ( ton/ day) Degreasing Equipment Operation Controls X X 0 12.83*

Reid Vapor Pressure ( 7.2) X X $ 7,717 2.15 Stage I ( 50,000) X X $ 2,894 3.41 Reid Vapor Pressure ( 7.0) X X $ 11,402 3.13 Stage I ( 25,000) X X $ 4,471 5.81 * Assuming no controls/ reductions due to Chapter 106 rules LOCAL CLEAN AIR STRATEGIES The AIR Committee recommended three Clean Air Strategies for inclusion in the Clean Air Plan to local Early Action Compact signatory governments for their final approval. The strategies were:   Reid vapor pressure lowered to 7.2 pounds per square inch during the ozone season for the San Antonio region;   Degreasing Equipment Operation Controls, described in TAC, Title 30, Ch. 115; and   Stage I vapor recovery required of service stations of 25,000 gallons throughput of gasoline or more per month. The eight local governments which are signatories to the Early Action Compact for the San Antonio region deliberated these strategies during regularly scheduled meetings of their representatives ( i. e., during City Council meetings or during Commissioners' Court sessions). These meetings are open to the public and have meeting schedules published according to the Texas Open Meetings Act. All eight governments approved each of the three strategies specified above. Copies of their signed resolutions to this effect are attached to this Clean Air Plan document set.

The San Antonio EAC Region, acting through the AIR Committee, has incorporated these three strategies into the Clean Air Plan and requests that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality take the necessary actions, including development of enforcement provisions, to implement these Clean Air Strategies.

The following sections describe the clean air measures that were selected by local officials to clean the SAER's ambient air. Along with strategy descriptions, the emission reductions are provided. DRAFT I 19 Lower Reid Vapor Pressure ( RVP) The use of lower Reid vapor pressure fuel will reduce the emission of volatile organic compounds ( VOC) into the atmosphere. The requirement for gasoline refineries to provide such gasoline will only be during the months of March through October, which is traditionally the time of the year ozone levels exceed the national standard. Fuel with a lower volatility achieves emissions reductions in ozone precursors by reducing aromatic hydrocarbon emissions from gasoline thereby reducing its ability to evaporate as quickly. Currently, state law caps the RVP levels sold in Texas at 7.8 during the ozone season.

Reducing the RVP to 7.2 will provide a reduction of 2.1 tons/ day of VOC and 0.05 tons/ day of NOx. The cost benefit of such reductions is estimated to be $ 7,717 per ton of reduced VOC and NOx. The per ton costs of RVP 7.2 and 7.0 were calculated based on the information that Valero, a local refinery, had submitted to AACOG.

Challenges Facing the Lower RVP Strategy This Clean Air Strategy was originally envisioned as SIP creditable. Information received by AACOG has challenged the SIP creditability. On January 27, 2004, communication from EPA's Region 6 office was received regarding Section 211 of the Clean Air Act and its possible implications to SAER's request for state implementation of requirements for gasoline with an RVP of 7.2 in the region. Further clarification was necessary for the CAA's interpretation on whether such a provision is applicable to Early Action Compact areas. This possible challenge, however, did not deter the AIR Committee's consideration of the strategy, and on January 28, 2004 lower RVP received formal endorsement by the committee. The strategy, along with the other approved strategies, were then presented to the local EAC signatory governments for ratification. Endorsement was given to lower RVP by the EAC signatory governments, first by the City of Seguin on February 3, 2004. The final government to endorse lower RVP was the Guadalupe Commissioner's Court on February 24, 2004. Thus, all eight local governments approved resolutions requesting the three strategies during that February 3 24 period.

On February 13, 2004, Candy Garret1 ( personal communication, February 13, 2004) from the TCEQ provided AACOG some clarification regarding the circumstances allowing such a measure to be implemented in the local EAC SIP. According to the EPA's and TCEQ's preliminary investigations, Section 211( c)( 4)( A) of the federal CAA prohibits state and federal governments from enforcing RVP as it was being requested. Such a measure can only be implemented in an EAC SIP if there are special circumstances. Detailed descriptions regarding Section 211 and its effect on the promulgation of lower RVP rules are provided in Appendix K. On February 17, 2004, an EPA working group confirmed their earlier interpretation of this provision, supporting TCEQ's opinion.

Resolution of Challenges Facing Lower RVP   Given the formal approval of the EAC signatory governments, the San Antonio EAC region is committed to requesting that the state implement a 4 county EAC regional rule requiring gasoline stations to dispense gasoline with an RVP 7.2 during the months of March to October.

1 Ms. Candy Garrett is a Director, Environmental Planning and Implementation, for TCEQ. DRAFT I 20   Given also the apparent enforcement prohibitions described above, the emissions reduction credits which would be expected through such a rule are not being placed in the SIP creditable section of this document.   Specifically, the credits which would be available due to seasonal 7.2 RVP and the technical details of such credit estimation methodology are relegated to the section entitled " Analysis of Additional Evidence", Appendix K.

Stage I Vapor Recovery Currently, Stage I systems are required in the SAER for facilities that dispense 125,000 or more gallons/ month of gasoline. The local Early Action Compact signatory governments in their final approval have requested to lower this threshold to 25,000 gallons/ month. There is a general consensus among the air quality planners in the region that implementation of this strategy would face the least difficulties, due to the existing wide spread use of Stage I technology in manufacturing of the underground gasoline tanks and anticipation of such a rule by the gas station owners.

As described in Table I 5, the projected amount of VOC emissions for 2007 " Tanker Truck Unloading" in SAER is approximately 7 tons per day. Lowering the threshold for Stage I to 25,000 gallons per day would reduce the 2007 " Tanker Truck Unloading" VOC emissions by 5.81 tons per day allowing for a total VOC emissions of 1.18 tpd for the " Tanker Truck Unloading" category. The methodology for the above calculation could be described as followings:

In the absence of emissions from gas stations with 125,000 gallon per day throughput, the share ( percentage) of the other throughput categories indicated in Table I 4 could be rearranged as shown below.

10,000 to 25,000 gallon/ day 16.86% 25,000 to 50,000 gallon/ day 34.43% 50,000 to 125,000 gallon/ day 48.71%

If these reduction percentages are applied to the total " Tanker Truck Unloading" VOC emissions, then we will arrive at the followings:

10,000 to 25,000 16.86% X 6.99 = 1.178 ton/ day VOC reduction 25,000 to 50,000 34.43% X 6.99 = 2.406 ton/ day VOC reduction 50,000 to 125,000 48.71% X 6.99 = 3.405 ton/ day VOC reduction The 25,000 gallons per day throughput control strategy results in 5.81 ton/ day of VOC reduction if we simply aggregate 2.406 and 3.405. Stage I Vapor Recovery for service stations of 25,000 gallons throughput of gasoline or more per month will be implemented and operational no later than December 31, 2005. Implementation of this control strategy comes as a formal request of the eight local governments who are signatories to the Early Action Compact. Their support for Stage I Vapor Recovery as a local clean air strategy, and their approval of this proposed local State Implementation Plan Revision, are attached as appendix N.

Degreasing Controls The Clean Air Strategy endorsed by the San Antonio EAC Region involves the application of Chapter 115 of the TAC to degreasing units in its four county region. Chapter 115 addresses emission controls on degreasing processes particularly in DRAFT I 21 nonattainment areas and it was believed that such controls could be applied to the SAER. Degreasing Equipment controls, as prescribed in Chapter 115, were projected to provide VOC emission reductions of 12.83 tons per day in the San Antonio region. This reduction total assumes no existing state degreasing controls of this type. This reduction total was presented to the elected officials and technical staff as the reductions available through local enactment of a Chapter 115 Degreasing Controls rule as identified in the ERG report.

The eight local Early Action Compact signatory governments took up the formal endorsement of Degreasing Controls as one of three Clean Air Strategies for their approval. The first government to consider this Clean Air Strategy set was the City of Seguin on February 3, 2004. The final government to consider them was Guadalupe Commissioners' Court on February 24, 2004. All eight local governments approved resolutions requesting the three strategies during that February 3  24 period.

Challenges In early February 2004, TCEQ staff from the Region 13 office informed AACOG staff that Chapter 106 of the TAC contained a requirement to implement Chapter 115 compliant degreasing controls statewide. Subsequent investigations revealed that subchapter T of Chapter 106 addresses degreasing units that may be subject to permit by rule and require the units, regardless of the county in which they are located, to meet the requirements of § 115.412 and § 115.415. ( TAC, 2004b) Following the realization that much of the credit previously calculated for degreasing controls as a voluntary Clean Air Strategy might no longer be available due to Chapter 106, AACOG staff proceeded to analyze Chapter 106 and Chapter 115 and assess how emission reductions should be properly determined and allocated.

Eddie Mack ( personal communication, February 13, 2004) of EPA's Region 6 office explained that the Chapter 115 degreaser requirements have been in place since early in the 1980' s for certain other regions of the state. Permit by rule ( PBR) stipulations in Chapter 106 ( § 106.454) require compliance with the Chapter 115 degreaser requirements, regardless of location. Such compliance with Chapter 115 through 106 regardless of location has only been in place since May 1994.

Hence, the initial 2007 degreasing emission reductions estimated through local Chapter 115 promulgation, which assumed that no such state rule was in place, were clearly overestimated. On the other hand, since promulgation of Chapter 106 predates 1999, then both the 1999 and 2007 " uncontrolled" degreasing emissions inventories, which heretofore had also assumed no effective degreasing controls of this type, were also likely to be too large.

Note that Chapters 106/ 115 as existing state rules guarantee that reduction credits are available, not as voluntary credits available to the region as Local Clean Air Strategy enactment, but in both the 1999 and 2007 base case as was the case for other existing state and federal rules.

Reductions in degreasing emissions due to both local implementation of Chapter 115 in the Clean Air Plan and due to Chapter 106 are described in two categories. 1. Reductions in emissions based on the growth of degreasing emission between 1999 and 2007, and 2. Reductions in degreasing emissions in the 1999 ( and hence, in the 2007) base case. DRAFT I 22 As reported in Appendix F, area source emission projections were generally calculated for 2007 using the Economic Growth Analysis System ( I GAS) model. The EGAS model supplied growth factors for projecting of all area source emissions2. Thus growth in degreasing emissions to 2007 was calculated based on the 1999 emissions inventory for this category.

Because Chapter 106 was in effect from 1999 to 2007, the growth in degreasing emissions during that period was in fact limited by the same factor as promulgation of the effective rule limited emissions in the degreasing operations themselves. That is, reduction credits due to the effective state rule can be taken on earlier calculations for growth in the degreasing emissions category from 1999 2007. This is both a first approximation correction to the 2007 base case degreasing emissions inventory and a source of modeling credit identified under applicable state and federal rules. As mentioned earlier, these reductions are not categorized as voluntary credits available to the region as Local Clean Air Strategy enactment.

Correcting the 1999 EI to account for the promulgation of Chapter 106, which was effective in 1994 and hence prior to 1999, is challenging. The 1999 EI should be corrected to account for the effects of Chapter 106, just as the 1999 2007 growth has been corrected. The preferred approach in taking credit for Chapter 106/ 115 emission reductions for 1999 involves using available information and data regarding compliance to the rules in 1999. Information regarding Safety Kleen, a Texas based company that provides various environmental services throughout the nation, was utilized in this approach.

Documentation provided by TCEQ shows that Safety Kleen 1) provides degreasing equipment and solvents for approximately 50% of the San Antonio market; 2) Safety Kleen products are Chapter 115 compliant; 3) Safety Kleen provided these products to their customers in the San Antonio region consistent with the promulgation of Chapter 106. Hence, the 85% reduction effective through Chapter 106/ 115 should act as a first approximation correction to 50% of the degreasing emissions in the 1999 EI. Since these emission reductions are not reflected in the 1999 base case, these emission reductions and potential credit are further documented in Appendix K, Additional Evidence.

Note that the 2007 degreasing EI is simply equal to the sum of the 1999 degreasing EI plus the 1999 2007 growth in degreasing emissions. Hence, lowering the 1999 degreasing EI due to the presence of Safety Kleen in the market is necessarily reflected also as an adjustment to the 2007 degreasing EI.

Resolution of Challenges: Degreasing Equipment Controls   Given the formal approval of the EAC signatory governments, the San Antonio EAC region is committed to requesting that the state implement a 4 county EAC regional rule requiring compliance with Degreasing Equipment Operation Controls, described in TAC, Title 30, Ch. 115.   Given Chapter 106, reductions in emissions based on the growth of degreasing emission between 1999 and 2007 have been approximated and are treated uniquely as additional reductions due to current State rule.

2 With the exception of Architectural Surface Coatings and Consumer/ Commercial Solvents DRAFT I 23   Reductions in the 1999 ( and 2007) base case degreasing emissions inventories have been calculated based on Safety Kleen's participation in the regional market. These reductions are treated as tentative and unconfirmed reductions and are discussed in the Additional Evidence section, Appendix K.   Chapter 106 of the TAC was adopted in 1994, thus applying to degreasing facilities that were constructed or scheduled to be constructed on and after 1994. This leaves degreasing facilities that were in existence prior to 1994 exempt from Chapter 106 rule. These uncontrolled facilities would be subjected to the regulations of Chapter 115 due to the passage of the rule by local governments, therefore be a source of additional emission reductions, as described in Appendix K, Additional Evidence.

Local signatory governments were presented the three clean air strategies recommended by the AIR Committee between the dates of February 3 and February 24, 2004. The EAC signatory governments passed resolutions requesting the clean air measures in table 5.4 be implemented in the SAER.

Design Values Once the strategies were incorporated into the photochemical model's 2007 projection, a design value was analyzed to ensure the strategies had a positive impact on the predicted ozone values. These control strategy design values are the result of analyzing Stage I Vapor Recovery implementation on area gasoline stations that dispense at least 25,000 gallons a month and are listed in table I 8.

Table I 12. Design Values for the CAMS Stations after Clean Air Strategy Analysis Monitoring Station 2007 Design Value 2007 Design Value with Control Strategies CAMS 23 84.52 84.40 CAMS 58 82.12 82.03 CAMS 59 74.48 74.44 CAMS 678 74.46 74.39 CAMS 33 82.57 82.57 CAMS 383 84.41 84.41 The calculations for the development of the design values are described in greater detail in Appendix H, Modeled Attainment Test.

CONCLUSION The San Antonio EAC Region has committed to pursue various clean air measures as requested by the local governments. These commitments involve requesting lower RVP gasoline implementation, Stage I Vapor recovery systems, and Degreasing Equipment Controls. Details regarding emission reductions due to gasoline having an RVP of 7.2 3 CAMS 3 and CAMS 38 are located in the Austin MSA. Ozone readings from these monitors are included in the modeling analysis since guidance recommends analysis of monitoring stations within the 4 km grid of the modeling episode. Due to Austin's close proximity to the SAER, reflecting attainment of the 8 hour NAAQS in this region strengthens SAER's 2007 demonstration. DRAFT I 24 can be found in Appendix K, Additional Evidence. Stage I vapor recovery system for retailers that dispense no less than 25,000 gallons per month is SIP creditable was discussed in a previous section of this appendix. Degreasing controls, through consideration of Chapter 106 and Chapter 115, have various degrees of creditability. Emission reductions achieved by Chapter 106 on growth in degreasing emission between 1999 and 2007 are accounted for as emission reductions due to state rule and were discussed in this appendix. Reductions in the 1999 base case due to Chapter 106 are treated as additional evidence and discussed in Appendix K. Additional reductions are possible through local implementation of Chapter 115 to degreasing units that were in existence prior to 1999, described in Appendix K. DRAFT I 25 References:

Alamo Area Council of Governments ( AACOG), 2001. " 2007 Projected Emissions Inventory for the Alamo Area Council of Governments Region." San Antonio, Texas.

Control of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds, 30 T. A. C. § § 117.260, 117.261, 117.265, 117.273, 117.279, and 117.283 ( 2000). Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 117_ ind. pdf Environ International Corporation, 2001. " Future Year Ozone Modeling of the Austin, Texas Region: Draft Final Report." Novato, Ca.

Synergetic Technologies, Inc., 2004. Last accessed March 21, 2004. Available online: http:// www. stationwatch. com/ swfaq/ orvr_ faq. htm# FAQ001 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ( TCEQ), 1999. " Chapter 115  Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds, Rule Log No. 98028 115 AI." Austin, Texas.

Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, 30 T. A. C. § 115.221 229 ( 1999). Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 115c. pdf Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds, 30 T. A. C. § 115.412 415 ( 1999). Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 115_ ind. pdf Permits by Rule, 30 T. A. C § 106.1 ( 2000). Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 106_ ind. pdf Permits by Rule, 30 T. A. C § 106.454 ( 2001). Available online: http:// www. tnrcc. state. tx. us/ oprd/ rules/ pdflib/ 106_ ind. pdf Texas Transportation Institute ( TTI), Texas A& M University System, June 2003. " San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area On Road Mobile Source Modeling Emissions Inventories: 1999, 2007, and 2012." College Station, Texas. Available as Appendix C, On Road Mobile Emissions Inventory Development, San Antonio EAC Region Attainment Demonstration, March 2004.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), December 1997. Regulatory Announcement: Final Rule for the National Low Emission Vehicle Program. Washington D. C. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ regs/ ld hwy/ lev nlev/ sfrm fs. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), July 1998. Information Sheet # 6: Effect of the New National Low Emission Vehicle Standard for Light Duty Gasoline Fueled Vehicles. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ oms/ m5. htm U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), November 4, 1998. Commonly Asked Questions About ORVR. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ regs/ ldhwy onboard/ orvrq a. txt DRAFT I 26 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), May 1999. Proposed " Tier 2" Emission Standards for Vehicles and Gasoline Sulfur Standards for Refineries. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ regs/ ld hwy/ tier 2/ frm/ f99051. pdf U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, ( USEPA), February 20, 2000. 40 CFR Parts 80, 85, and 86 Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Control Requirements, Final Rule. Volume 65, Number 28. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/ EPA AIR/ 2000/ February/ Day 10/ a19a. htm.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), October 1997. New Emission Standards for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines Used in Trucks and Buses. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ OMSWWW/ hd hwy. htm U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA), January 30, 1998. MOBILE5 Information Sheet # 5: Inclusion of New 2004 NOx Standard for Heavy Duty Diesel Engines in MOBILE5a and MOBILE5b Modeling. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Available online: http:// www. epa. gov/ oms/ m5. htm


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4070-4073]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1628]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66210; File No. SR-C2-2012-003]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Related to Complex Order Price Check Parameter Features

January 20, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on January 9, 2012, the C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``Exchange''
or ``C2'') 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 Exchange
has designated the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend its complex order processing
rules to update existing price check protection features and include
some additional ones. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/RuleFilings.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at the
Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange has in place various price check parameter features
that are designed to prevent incoming orders from automatically
executing at potentially erroneous prices. These price check parameter
features are designed to help maintain a fair and orderly market. The
Exchange is proposing to amend its complex order processing rules under
Rule 6.13, Complex Order Execution, to update existing price check
protection features to provide additional clarity on the operation of
the functionality and to include some additional features. The Exchange
believes the below-described price check parameter revisions will
enhance the existing functionality and assist with the maintenance of
fair and orderly markets by helping to mitigate the potential risks
associated with an order drilling through multiple price points
(thereby resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and
potentially erroneous) and complex orders trading at prices that are
inconsistent with particular complex order strategies (thereby
resulting in executions at prices that are extreme and potentially
erroneous).
    First, the Exchange is proposing to include descriptive headings in
the rule text for each of the existing price check parameters. The
Exchange is also proposing to break the description of the existing
same expiration strategy price check parameters into two separate
paragraphs instead of a single paragraph. We believe these changes will
make it easier for users to read and understand the operation of these
price protection features. These changes are simply non-substantive
formatting changes and do not impact the operation of the various
features.
    Second, the market width parameter under Rule 6.13.04(a) currently
provides that the complex order book (``COB'') will not automatically
execute eligible complex orders that are market orders if the width
between the Exchange's best bid and best offer (``BBO'') are not within
an acceptable price range. In addition, the rule text currently
provides that such market complex orders will be cancelled.
    The Exchange is proposing to revise this provision to provide that
the Exchange may determine to apply these price check parameters to
market orders and/or marketable limit orders. However, whereas market
orders that are subject to this price protection feature are cancelled,
marketable limit orders would be held in the system. Any such orders
held in the system would not be eligible to automatically execute until
after the market width parameter condition is resolved. In addition,
while being held in the system, such orders would be displayed in the
COB as applicable. This functionality for marketable limit order is
currently in use but not expressly covered in the rules. The Exchange
believes that extending the same price check logic to not automatically
execute such marketable limit orders but to continue to hold such
orders in the system is reasonable and appropriate because, as with
market orders, this feature should help to prevent executions of such
limit orders at extreme and potentially erroneous prices. In contrast
to market orders, marketable limit orders are able to be held in the
system because they have a price associated with them. The Exchange
also notes that applying market width price check logic to market
orders and/or marketable limit orders is consistent with other existing
price check parameters that apply to both market orders and marketable
limit complex orders.\5\ In addition, the

Exchange is proposing to correct a typographical error by changing the
minimum acceptable price range specified in the rule text for orders in
option series where the bid is less than $2 from $0.37 to $0.375.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Rule 6.17, Price Check Parameters (which
provides, among other things, that the Exchange will not
automatically execute eligible orders that are marketable if the
width between the national best bid and offer is not within an
acceptable price range (as determined by the Exchange on a series by
series basis for market orders and/or marketable limit orders and
announced to Trading Permit Holders via Regulatory Circular).
    \6\ The $0.375 amount is same as the acceptable price range
parameters set forth in Rule 6.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the debit-to-credit (credit-to-debit) parameters under Rule
6.13.04(b) currently provide that (i) a market order that would be
executed at a net credit price after receiving a partial execution at a
net debit price would not be automatically executed (the ``debit-to-
credit'' parameter), and (ii) a market order that would be executed at
a net debit price after receiving a partial execution at a net credit
price would not be automatically executed (the ``credit-to-debit''
parameter). The Exchange is proposing to eliminate the debit-to-credit
parameter because it not possible for such a scenario to occur and
therefore the parameter is unnecessary. (Because orders are executed at
the best available price and then the next best price, a market order
would never execute at a net debit price then at a net credit price.)
    Fourth, the Exchange is proposing to change the existing same
expiration strategy price check parameters to distinguish between its
application to limit orders and to market orders. The Exchange is also
proposing to eliminate a provision that would make this price check
parameter feature available to ratio orders should the Exchange
determine to do so. As the term implies, the ``same expiration
strategy'' price protection parameters apply to certain complex order
strategies where all the option series have the same expiration.\7\ The
functionality is designed to detect scenarios where (i) a limit order
is entered at a net credit price when it clearly should have been
entered at a net debit price (or vice versa) and (ii) a market order
would be executed at a net debit price when it clearly should be
executed at a net credit price (but not vice versa).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 6.13.04(c).
    \8\ A same expiration strategy market order that would result in
an execution at a net credit price (i.e., the net sale proceeds from
the series being sold are more than the net purchase cost from the
series being bought) but that would normally execute at a net debit
price (i.e., the net sale proceeds from the series being sold are
less than the net purchase cost from the series being bought) would
be a favorable execution for the market order and would not trigger
this price check parameter. In making the changes to the rule text,
the Exchange is correcting a typographical error, which correction
clarifies that the same expiration strategy parameter does not apply
to market orders that would execute at a net credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently the rule text provides that, if the conditions for this
price check parameter exist when a complex order is routed to the COB,
then the order will be rejected. The rule text also currently provides
that, to the extent the parameters are triggered once an order is
resting in COB or after an incoming order receives a partial execution,
such a complex order will be cancelled. The provision does not
distinguish between limit orders and market orders. The Exchange is
proposing to amend the text to separately describe how the two
categories of orders are processed.
    With respect to limit orders, proposed changes to the text provide
that incoming limit orders will be rejected under this parameter only
if the conditions exist when the order is first routed to COB. The
provisions about resting orders and partial executions are not
applicable to limit orders because incoming limit orders that are
priced at a net price that meets the conditions are rejected outright
upon routing to COB and never get to the point where they are resting
or partially executed. With respect to market orders, proposed changes
to the text provide that, to the extent the parameters are triggered
when an incoming market order is routed to COB or after an incoming
market order is subject to a complex order RFR auction (``COA''), any
part of the market order that may be executed within an acceptable
price range will be executed automatically and the part of the order
that would execute at a net debit price will be cancelled. (A market
order would never rest in COB, so that provision will be removed from
the rule text.) The following examples illustrate this price check
parameter:

    Example 1: Assume a complex order to buy 50 Jan 45 XYZ calls and
sell 50 Jan 50 XYZ calls is entered with a limit that is a net
credit price (i.e., the net sale proceeds from the Jan 50 calls are
larger than the net purchase cost from the Jan 45 calls). Such an
order would appear to be erroneously priced as a net credit--it
should instead be a net debit--because normally a person would
expect that the Jan 50 calls would not cost more than the Jan 45
calls. As a result, upon routing to COB, such a limit order would be
rejected.
    Example 2: Assume a butterfly spread to buy 50 Jan 45 XYZ calls,
sell 100 Jan 50 XYZ calls and buy 50 Jan 55 XYZ calls is entered at
a net credit price (i.e., the net sale proceeds from the Jan 50
calls are more than the net purchase cost from the Jan 45 and 55
calls). Such an order would appear to be erroneously priced as a net
credit--it should instead be a net debit--because normally a person
would expect that selling the middle 50 strike would result in less
than the cost of buying the upper 55 and lower 45 strikes. As a
result, upon routing to COB, such a limit order would be rejected.
    Example 3: Assume a market order to buy 50 Jan 45 XYZ calls and
sell 50 Jan 40 XYZ calls is entered. Also assume that the Jan 45 XYZ
calls are quoted $4.00-$4.10 for 10 contracts and the next available
offer is $4.30 for 100 contracts, and that the Jan 40 XYZ calls are
quoted $4.50-$4.60 for 10 contracts and the next available bid is
$4.20 for 100 contracts. Under this scenario, the incoming market
order would receive an execution for 10 spreads at a net credit
price of $0.40 each (i.e., the net sale proceeds from the Jan 40
Series are larger than the net purchase cost from the Jan 45
Series). When the series decrement, the net execution price would
become a net debit price of $0.10 each (i.e., the net sale proceeds
from the Jan 40 Series are less than the net purchase cost from the
Jan 45 Series). Such an execution would appear to be erroneous
because normally a person in this scenario would expect to execute
the vertical spread at a net credit price. As a result, upon routing
to COB, 10 contracts would execute at a net credit price of $0.40
each and the remaining 40 contracts would be cancelled.
    Example 4: Assume a market order to buy 50 Jan 45 XYZ calls and
sell 50 Jan 40 XYZ calls is routed to COA. Also assume that at the
end of the COA the Jan 45 XYZ calls are quoted $4.00-$4.10 for 10
contracts and the next available offer is $4.30 for 100 contracts,
and that the Jan 40 XYZ calls are quoted $4.50-$4.60 for 10
contracts and the next available bid is $4.20 for 100 contracts. To
the extent the market order can execute at prices within the price
check parameter, then that part of the order would execute (i.e., 10
vertical spreads will execute at a net credit price of $0.40). To
the extent that the price check parameters are triggered at the
conclusion of COA, then that part of the market order would be
cancelled (i.e., 40 vertical spreads will cancel).

    As noted above, the Exchange is also proposing to delete a
provision in the rule that provides that the Exchange may determine to
make the same expiration strategy price check parameters available to
applicable ratio orders (as such applicable ratios are determined by
the Exchange on a class-by-class basis). The Exchange has not activated
this feature for ratio orders and has no intention to do so at this
time. Therefore, the Exchange is proposing to delete this provision
from the rule at this time.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In the future, should the Exchange would determine to apply
this price check parameter feature to ratio orders, the Exchange
would address it through a separate rule change filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, fifth, the Exchange is proposing to codify a price check
parameter for orders processed via COA, which is currently in use but
not

expressly covered in the rules. Specifically, the Exchange may
determine on a class-by-class basis (and announce via Regulatory
Circular) that COA will not automatically execute a COA-eligible order
that is marketable if the execution would be at a price that is not
within an acceptable percentage distance from the derived net price of
the individual series legs at the start of COA. For purposes of this
provision, the ``acceptable percentage distance'' will be a percentage
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis and it shall be
not less than 3 percent. The Exchange believes a 3 percent level is
reasonable and appropriate because a marketable order that would
deviate from the derived net market by that percentage or more may be
indicative of an extreme or potentially erroneous price, and a broker
would generally want to evaluate the order further before receiving an
automatic execution. The Exchange also believes that a 3 percent
minimum is reasonable and appropriate in comparison to other price
check parameters it currently has available.\10\ To the extent the
parameters under this provision are triggered, such a complex order
will be cancelled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ``acceptable percentage distance'' price check
parameter for complex orders is adapted from the ``acceptable tick
distance'' parameter set forth in Rule 6.17, which provides that the
acceptable tick distance shall not be less than 2 minimum increment
ticks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Exchange could determine that the acceptable
percentage distance is 5%. Assume at the start of COA the individual
leg market in Series A is $1.00-$1.20 and in series B is $2.00-$2.20
and the derived leg market is $0.80 (net debit)-$1.20 (net credit). The
acceptable percentage distance would be $0.04 (5% x $0.80) for orders
to buy Series A and sell series B and $0.06 (5% x $1.20) for orders to
sell Series A and buy series B. As a result, COA would execute a COA-
eligible order at prices ranging from $0.84 (net debit)--$1.26 (net
credit), but not an order priced at a net debit of $0.85 or more or a
net credit of $1.27 or more.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\11\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \12\ in particular in that it should promote just and equitable
principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange believes the
complex order price check parameters assist in the automatic execution
and processing of orders that are subject to the Exchange's complex
order processing. The Exchange also believes these price check
parameters assist with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by
helping to mitigate the potential risks associated with complex orders
drilling through multiple price points (thereby resulting in executions
at prices that are extreme and potentially erroneous) and complex
orders trading at prices that are inconsistent with particular complex
order strategies (thereby resulting in executions at prices that are
extreme and potentially erroneous). In this regard, for example, the
Exchange notes that the acceptable percentage distance parameter is
designed to mitigate the potential risks of executions at prices that
are not within an acceptable percentage distance from the derived net
market price of the individual series legs. The Exchange also notes
that the extension of the BBO market width logic to include marketable
limit orders is designed to help prevent executions of such limit
orders at extreme and potentially erroneous prices in a manner
consistent with the existing logic utilized for market orders. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to the rule text will
make it easier for users to read and understand the operation of the
price check parameters, and will better and more fully describe the
operation of the parameters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposal.

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

    Because the foregoing rule does not (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\14\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2012-003 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2012-003. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and

printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal 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-C2-2012-003 and should be
submitted on or before February 16, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-1628 Filed 1-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47332-47334]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16558]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1193; Special Conditions No. 25-798-SC]

Special Conditions: Dassault Aviation Falcon Model 6X Airplane;
Design Speed Definition

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation
(Dassault) Model Falcon 6X Airplane. This airplane will have a novel or
unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. This design feature is a high speed protection system that
limits nose-down pilot authority at speeds above VC/
MC. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These
special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Dassault on August 3, 2022. Send
comments on or before September 19, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2021-1193 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the
FAA will post all comments received without change to http://

www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about these special conditions.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these special
conditions contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, it is
important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI.
Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.''
The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and the indicated comments will not be placed in the public
docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to
Todd Martin, Materials and Structural Properties Section, AIR-621,
Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation Division,
Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax
206-231-3210; email [email protected]. Comments the FAA receives,
which are not specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the
public docket for these special conditions.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, Materials and Structural
Properties Section, AIR-621, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy
and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines,
Washington 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received.
Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to Sec.  11.38(b), that new comments
are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On July 1, 2012, Dassault Aviation applied for a type certificate
for its new Model Falcon 5X airplane. However, Dassault has decided not
to release an airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X, instead
choosing to change that model designation to Falcon 6X.
    In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault
extended the type certificate application date for its Model Falcon 5X
airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This airplane is a twin-engine
business jet with seating for 19 passengers and a maximum takeoff
weight of 77,460 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 6X airplane meets
the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1
through 25-146.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    The airplane is equipped with a high speed protection system that
limits nose-down pilot authority at speeds above VC/
MC, and prevents the airplane from actually performing the
maneuver required under 14 CFR 25.335(b)(1).

Discussion

    Section 25.335(b)(1) is an analytical envelope condition, adopted
initially in part 4b of the Civil Air Regulations, to provide an
acceptable speed margin between design cruise speed and design dive
speed. The design dive speed impacts flutter clearance design speeds
and airframe design loads. While the initial condition for the upset
specified in the rule is 1g level flight, protection is afforded for
other inadvertent overspeed conditions. Section 25.335(b)(1) is
intended as a conservative enveloping condition for potential overspeed
conditions, including non-symmetric ones.
    To establish that potential overspeed conditions are enveloped, the
applicant should demonstrate that any reduced speed margin, based on
the high speed protection system on the Dassault Model Falcon 6X, will
not be exceeded in inadvertent, or gust induced, upsets resulting in
initiation of the dive from non-symmetric attitudes; or that the
flight-control laws protect the airplane from getting into non-
symmetric upset conditions. The proposed special conditions identify
various symmetric and non-symmetric maneuvers to ensure that an
appropriate design dive speed, VD/MD, is
established.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X
Airplane.

Design Speed Definition

    (a) In lieu of compliance with 14 CFR 25.335(b)(1), if the flight-
control system includes functions that act automatically to initiate
recovery before the end of the 20 second period specified in Sec.
25.335(b)(1), VD/MD must be determined from the
greater of the speeds resulting from conditions (a) and (b) below. The
speed increase occurring in these maneuvers may be calculated, if
reliable or conservative aerodynamic data are used.
    (1) From an initial condition of stabilized flight at
VC/MC, the airplane is upset so as to take up a
new flight path 7.5 degrees below the initial path. The pilot
implements a control application to try to maintain this new flight
path up to full authority. Twenty seconds after initiating the upset,
manual recovery is made at a load factor of 1.5 g (0.5 acceleration
increment), or such greater load factor the system automatically
applies with the pilot's pitch control neutral. Power, as specified in
Sec.  25.175(b)(1)(iv), is assumed until the pilot initiates a
recovery, at which time power reduction and the use of pilot-controlled
drag devices may be used.
    (2) From a speed below VC/MC, with power to
maintain stabilized level flight at this speed, the airplane is upset
so as to accelerate through VC/MC at a flight
path 15 degrees below the initial path (or at the steepest nose-down
attitude that the system will permit with full control authority if
less than 15 degrees). The pilot's controls may be in the neutral
position after reaching VC/MC and before recovery
is initiated. Three seconds after a high-speed warning system
annunciation, the pilot may initiate recovery by applying a load of
1.5g (0.5 acceleration increment), or such greater load factor that is
automatically applied by the system with the pilot's pitch control
neutral. Power may be reduced simultaneously. All other means of
decelerating the airplane, the use of which is authorized up to the
highest speed reached in the maneuver, may be used. The interval
between successive pilot actions must not be less than one second.
    (b) The applicant must also demonstrate that the speed margin,
established as above, will not be exceeded in inadvertent, or gust
induced, upsets resulting in initiation of the dive from non-symmetric
attitudes, unless the flight-control laws protect the airplane from
getting into non-symmetric upset conditions. The upset maneuvers
described in Advisory Circular 25-7D, ``Flight Test Guide For
Certification of Transport Category Airplanes,'' paragraphs <IP_ADDRESS>.1
and <IP_ADDRESS>.3, paragraphs c.(3)(a) and (c) may be used to comply with
this requirement.
    (c) Any failure of the high-speed protection system that would
result in an airspeed exceeding those determined by conditions (a) and
(b), above, must have a probability of occurrence of less than 1E-5 per
flight hour.
    (d) Failures of the system must be annunciated to the pilots.
Flight manual instructions must be provided that reduce the maximum
operating speeds, VMO/MMO. The operating speed
must be reduced to a value that maintains a speed margin between
VMO/MMO and VD/MD that is
consistent with showing compliance with Sec.  25.335(b) without the
benefit of the high-speed protection system.
    (e) Dispatch of the airplane with the high-speed protection system
inoperative could be allowed under an approved minimum equipment
listing that would require flight manual instructions to indicate
reduced maximum operating speeds, as described in condition (d), above.
In addition, the cockpit display of the reduced operating speeds, and
the overspeed warning for exceeding those speeds, must be equivalent to
that of the normal airplane with the high-speed protection system
operative. It must also be shown that no additional hazards are
introduced with the high-speed protection system inoperative.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 20, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-16558 Filed 8-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7469]
[DOCID:fr19fe10-60]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD04-4-001]

Panel Member List for Hydropower Licensing Study Dispute
Resolution; Notice Extending Filing Date for Applications for Panel
Member List for Hydropower Licensing Study Dispute Resolution

February 4, 2010.
    On October 20, 2009, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) requested applications to be included on a list of
resource experts willing to serve as a third panel member in the
Commission's hydropower integrated licensing process (ILP) study
dispute resolution process. We are extending the application period
until August 15, 2010, to afford interested parties more time to
respond to the original request. Respondents to the initial request
need not reapply to be considered. Information on the application
contents and how to file applications can be found in the October 20,
2009 notice or on the Commission's Web page at: http://www.ferc.gov/
industries/hydropower.asp. For more information please contact David
Turner at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-3158 Filed 2-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P