[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28524-28526]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12989]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1721]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). The LOMR will be used by
insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown
in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in
which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate
Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required.

They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations
are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 24, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chief executive                         Online location of
        State and county          Location and case      officer of         Community map        letter of map        Effective date of    Community No.
                                         No.              community          repository             revision            modification
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado: Denver...............  City and County of  The Honorable       Department of       http://                Aug. 11, 2017.......          080046
                                  Denver (17-08-      Michael Hancock,    Public Works, 201   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  0150P).             Mayor, City and     West Colfax         lomc.
                                                      County of Denver,   Avenue, Denver,
                                                      1437 Bannock        CO 80202.
                                                      Street, Room 350,
                                                      Denver, CO 80202.
Florida:
    Duval......................  City of             The Honorable       Development         http://                Jul. 19, 2017.......          120077
                                  Jacksonville (17-   Lenny Curry,        Services            www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  04-0145P).          Mayor, City of      Department, 214     lomc.
                                                      Jacksonville, 117   North Hogan
                                                      West Duval          Street, Suite
                                                      Street, Suite       2100,
                                                      400,                Jacksonville, FL
                                                      Jacksonville, FL    32202.
                                                      32202.
    Lee........................  City of Bonita      The Honorable       Community           http://                Aug. 9, 2017........          120680
                                  Springs (17-04-     Peter Simmons,      Development         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  0901P).             Mayor, City of      Department, 9220    lomc.
                                                      Bonita Springs,     Bonita Beach
                                                      9101 Bonita Beach   Road, Bonita
                                                      Road, Bonita        Springs, FL 34135.
                                                      Springs, FL 34135.
    Lee........................  City of Bonita      The Honorable       Community           http://                Aug. 11, 2017.......          120680
                                  Springs (17-04-     Peter Simmons,      Development         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  2066P).             Mayor, City of      Department, 9220    lomc.
                                                      Bonita Springs,     Bonita Beach
                                                      9101 Bonita Beach   Road, Bonita
                                                      Road, Bonita        Springs, FL 34135.
                                                      Springs, FL 34135.
    Lee........................  City of Sanibel     The Honorable       Planning and Code   http://                Aug. 11, 2017.......          120402
                                  (17-04-0705P).      Kevin Ruane,        Enforcement         www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Department, 800     lomc.
                                                      Sanibel, 800        Dunlop Road,
                                                      Dunlop Road,        Sanibel, FL 33957.
                                                      Sanibel, FL 33957.
     Monroe....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Monroe County       http://                Aug. 4, 2017........          125129
                                  areas of Monroe     George Neugent,     Building            www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (17-04-      Mayor, Monroe       Department, 2798    lomc.
                                  0652P).             County Board of     Overseas Highway,
                                                      Commissioners, 25   Marathon, FL
                                                      Ships Way, Big      33050.
                                                      Pine Key, FL
                                                      33043.
    St. Johns..................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       St. Johns County    http://                Jul. 19, 2017.......          125147
                                  areas of St.        James K. Johns,     Building Services   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Johns County (17-   Chairman, St.       Division, 4040      lomc.
                                  04-0145P).          Johns County        Lewis Speedway,
                                                      Board of            St. Augustine,
                                                      Commissioners,      FL, 32084.
                                                      500 San Sebastian
                                                      View, St.
                                                      Augustine, FL,
                                                      32084.
Oklahoma:
    Oklahoma...................  City of Edmond (16- The Honorable       Engineering         http://                Aug. 7, 2017........          400252
                                  06-3164P).          Charles Lamb,       Department, 10      www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      South Littler       lomc.
                                                      Edmond, P.O. Box    Avenue, Edmond,
                                                      2970, Edmond, OK    OK 73084.
                                                      73083.
    Tulsa......................  City of Bixby (16-  The Honorable John  City Hall, 116      http://                Aug. 14, 2017.......          400207
                                  06-2420P).          Easton, Mayor,      West Needles        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Bixby,      Avenue, Bixby, OK   lomc.
                                                      P.O. Box 70,        74008.
                                                      Bixby, OK 74008.
South Carolina: Clarendon......  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Clarendon County    http://                Jul. 14, 2017.......          450051
                                  areas of            Dwight L.           Planning            www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  Clarendon County    Stewart,            Commission, 411     lomc.
                                  (16-04-7377P).      Chairman,           Sunset Drive,
                                                      Clarendon County    Manning, SC 29102.
                                                      Council, 411
                                                      Sunset Drive,
                                                      Manning, SC 29102.
Texas:.........................
    Bexar......................  City of San         The Honorable Ivy   Transportation and  http://                Aug. 10, 2017.......          480045
                                  Antonio (17-06-     R. Taylor, Mayor,   Capital             www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  0117P).             City of San         Improvements        lomc.
                                                      Antonio, P.O. Box   Department,
                                                      839966, San         Stormwater
                                                      Antonio, TX 78283.  Division, 1901
                                                                          South Alamo
                                                                          Street, 2nd
                                                                          Floor, San
                                                                          Antonio, TX 78204.

    Bexar......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Bexar County        http://                Aug. 10, 2017.......          480035
                                  areas of Bexar      Nelson W. Wolff,    Public Works        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (17-06-      Bexar County        Department, 233     lomc.
                                  0117P).             Judge, 101 West     North Pecos-La
                                                      Nueva Street,       Trinidad Street,
                                                      10th Floor, San     Suite 420, San
                                                      Antonio, TX 78205.  Antonio, TX 78207.
    Dallas.....................  City of Rowlett     The Honorable Todd  City Hall, 4000     http://                Aug. 11, 2017.......          480185
                                  (16-06-3341P).      W. Gottel, Mayor,   Main Street,        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Rowlett,    Rowlett, TX 75088.  lomc.
                                                      4000 Main Street,
                                                      Rowlett, TX 75088.
    Ellis......................  City of Waxahachie  The Honorable       Municipal Court,    http://                Aug. 9, 2017........          480211
                                  (17-06-0456P).      Kevin Strength,     101 West Main       www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Street,             lomc.
                                                      Waxahachie, 401     Waxahachie, TX
                                                      South Rogers        75165.
                                                      Street,
                                                      Waxahachie, TX
                                                      75165.
    Rockwall...................  City of Rockwall    The Honorable Jim   City Hall, 385      http://                Aug. 14, 2017.......          480547
                                  (17-06-0142P).      Pruitt, Mayor,      South Goliad        www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      City of Rockwall,   Street, Rockwall,   lomc.
                                                      385 South Goliad    TX 75087.
                                                      Street, Rockwall,
                                                      TX 75087.
Utah:..........................
    Kane.......................  City of Kanab (16-  The Honorable       City Hall, 26       http://                Aug. 11, 2017.......          490085
                                  08-1149P).          Robert D.           North 100 East,     www.msc.fema.gov/
                                                      Houston, Mayor,     Kanab, UT 84741.    lomc.
                                                      City of Kanab, 26
                                                      North 100 East,
                                                      Kanab, UT 84741.
    Kane.......................  Unincorporated      The Honorable Dirk  Kane County         http://                Aug. 11, 2017.......          490083
                                  areas of Kane       Clayson,            Recorders Office,   www.msc.fema.gov/
                                  County (16-08-      Chairman, Kane      76 North Main       lomc.
                                  1149P).             County Board of     Street, Kanab, UT
                                                      Commissioners, 76   84741.
                                                      North Main
                                                      Street, Kanab, UT
                                                      84741.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-12989 Filed 6-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Standardized Permit Rule Conference Call Discussion on extending to off site February 10, 2003 Attendees Name Organization Name Organization Joan Sowinski Colorado Jan Palumbo EPA Region 10 Doug Outlaw Florida Sonya Sasseville EPA/ OSW Bill Mundy Georgia Dale Ruhter EPA/ OSW Bob Bullock Idaho David Eberly EPA/ OSW Rob Morrison Rich Nussbaum Missouri Mark Eads EPA/ OSW Paul Counterman New York Jeff Gaines EPA/ OSW Jill Pafford North Carolina Jim Thompson EPA/ OECA Anne Dobbs Texas Lynn Holloway EPA/ OECA Allan Moore Utah Laurel Celeste EPA/ OGC Barbara Simcoe ASTSWMO We introduced the topic for discussion by providing some basic background of the proposed rule, and briefly described some of the comments received in relation to the question of extending the rule to offsite facilities ( facilities that manage wastes generated off site).

Then posed the question to the states about how they would feel about extending to off site if there were a requirement to submit a waste analysis plan and closure plan with the application, or whether there were additional requirements beyond those mentioned that would make extending to off site more palatable.

NY: Paul Counterman began by offering that they would be very much opposed to extending the rule to off site, noting numerous problems encountered with existing facilities that would be worse if under a standardized permit. He indicated problems with recycling facilities, facilities with improper waste storage. Paul indicated that there are problems with compliance at existing permitted facilities, and how much worse matters could be under a standardized permit. If permitted facilities don't always comply, how could standardized permit holders be trusted to comply? Not so much a matter of trust, but that a system of less accountability ( with a standardized permit) would not be in everyone's interest. Also expressed concern over public opinion with regard to not being able to have a full review of permit application information before permit issuance. GA: Bill Mundy agreed with NY NC: Jill Pafford agreed that it would not be a good idea to extend to off sites. In NC, permitted commercial operations often involve many different types of wastes stored/ treated in complicated arrangements. These would not be suited for a standardized permit.

CO: Joan Sowinski agreed with the other participants. Her experience was that many permitted facilities were often complex and had environmental problems. comments.

MO: Rob Morrison concurred. His experience was that their various facilities needed closer scrutiny ( than a standardized permit would provide) in order to assure the public that the operations were being conducted safely. Such operations included hazardous waste fuel blending, waste explosives treatment, and storage, materials handling. Most fires, for instance, occur with inappropriate materials handling, when incompatible wastes are mixed, or other safety measures are not followed. In practice, Rob felt the standardized permit ( if included off site) would complicate inspections, putting an increased burden on inspection and enforcement resources.

Region 10: Jan Palumbo felt the overall regular permitting process was an " educational" process to end that the Region / State could work more effectively with the facility, and that the facility understood the permitting requirements better.

FL: Doug Outlaw expressed agreement with what the other States said.

UT: Allan Moore expressed agreement with what the other States said.

CO: Joan expressed agreement.

Question raised whether extending to off site would be a step in the right direction?

ID: Bob Bullock felt the rule should be limited to facilities managing wastes generated on site. Extending to off site would add too much ambiguity to the permitting process.

We asked whether anything would help  is there anything we could add to the rule to make extending to off site acceptable?

GA: Bill said that having a requirement for a " complete letter of credit," payable to the state that would fund any cleanup or closure activities that could possibly be expected to occur.

We asked whether limiting the off sites to " captives only," those being facilities under the same corporate entity, would be acceptable, and under what conditions?

NY: Paul said that he'd be ok with captives if we required up front a waste analysis plan, a closure plan, and provided a very tight definition of what it meant to be of the same corporate entity.

CO: Joan asked what about federal facilities  the army for instance? Concern about the variety of wastes federal facilities manage, similar to concerns about commercial facilities where complex handling processes, poor handling practices. Also, concern of extending to off sites because of the requirement that federal facilities be treated the same as other offsite facilities.

ID: Bob did not think we should extend to captives. Also, concern for federal facilities. Not just limited to waste analysis plan issues, but operational concerns such as having proper fire suppression systems, and meeting other safety requirements. Setting operational parameters are critical to a safe permit, and there is a need to have more information up front prior to setting permit conditions. The standardized permit would not provide for the necessary level of detail and review.

GA: Bill did not think we should extend to captives.

FL: Doug indicated they'd be ok with captives if facilities were truly in the same company, i. e., the facilities are in the type of business such that each facility would be familiar with the waste stream being generated and managed.

NC: Jill indicated that they'd be ok with captives on a case by case basis.

We asked about extending the rule to facilities that engage in energy recovery, recycling operations?

NY: Paul indicated that NY did not have any facilities engaged solely in recycling. Recycling operations often are integrated into various other facility operations.

We asked NY whether there was any incentive for companies to sector out their recycling operations. Paul felt that no, there wasn't any incentive for this to occur.

NC: Jill said that extending to recycling would not be good. They've had problems in the past with recycling operations, so State law now requires a RCRA permit for recycling operations ( full part B type permit). Problems included bad handling practices and how they review the permit application to get a good handle on facility operations.

FL: Doug said their situation is similar to NY. If the recycling was real and not sham, then not such a bad thing, but what other waste constituents are going " along for the ride"?

GA: Bill said that the solvent reclaimers have " left a mess behind," and asked others if they had problems with the reclaimers. Doug ( FL) and Paul ( NY) said yes. Paul mentioned contamination problems left behind by precious metals recyclers who've claimed the precious metals exemption.

We thanked the participants for taking the time to participate in the call.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42036-42038]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17328]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67400; File No. SR-ISE-2012-63]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Fees and Rebates for Certain Complex Orders Executed on
the Exchange

July 11, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\
notice is hereby given that on July 2, 2012, the International
Securities Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to amend transaction fees and rebates for
certain complex orders executed on the Exchange. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently assesses per contract transaction fees and
rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from the
Exchange (``maker/taker fees and rebates'') in a number of options
classes (the ``Select Symbols'').\3\ The Exchange's maker/taker fees
and rebates are applicable to regular and complex orders executed in
the Select Symbols. The Exchange also currently assesses maker/taker
fees and rebates for complex orders in all symbols that are not in the
Penny Pilot Program (``Non-Penny Pilot Symbols'').\4\ The purpose of
this proposed rule change is to amend maker/taker fees and rebates for
complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Options classes subject to maker/taker fees are identified
by their ticker symbol on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \4\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 66084 (January 3, 2012), 77 FR
1103 (January 9, 2012) (SR-ISE-2011-84); 66392 (February 14, 2012),
77 FR 10016 (February 21, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-06); and 66962 (May 10,
2012), 77 FR 28917 (May 16, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-35).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols, the Exchange
currently charges a ``taker'' fee of: (i) $0.73 per contract for ISE
Market Maker,\5\ Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) \6\
orders; and (ii) $0.78 per contract for Non-ISE Market Maker \7\
orders. Priority Customer \8\ orders are not charged a ``taker'' fee
for complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols. For complex orders
in these same symbols, the Exchange currently charges a ``maker'' fee
of $0.10 per contract for ISE Market Maker, Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders. Priority Customer
orders are not charged a ``maker'' fee for complex orders in these
symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \6\ A Customer (Professional) is a person who is not a broker/
dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ A Non-ISE Market Maker, or Far Away Market Maker
(``FARMM''), is a market maker as defined in Section 3(a)(38) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (``Exchange Act''),
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    \8\ A Priority Customer is defined in ISE Rule 100(a)(37A) as a
person or entity that is not a broker/dealer in securities, and does
not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average
during a calendar month for its own beneficial account(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase the ``taker'' fee for complex
orders in the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols to (i) [sic] $0.75 per contract
for ISE

Market Maker, Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders. The
Exchange is not proposing any change to the ``taker'' fees for Non-ISE
Market Maker and Priority Customer orders.
    Further, the Exchange currently provides volume-based tiered
rebates for Priority Customer complex orders in the Non-Penny Pilot
Symbols when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer orders in
the complex order book. Specifically, the Exchange currently provides a
rebate of $0.57 per contract, per leg, for Priority Customer complex
orders when these orders trade with non-Priority Customer complex
orders in the complex order book. Additionally, Members who achieve
certain average daily volume (ADV) of Priority Customer complex order
contracts across all symbols executed during a calendar month are
provided a rebate of $0.59 per contract per leg, if a Member achieves
an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer complex order contracts; $0.61 per
contract per leg, if a Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority
Customer complex order contracts; and $0.615 per contract per leg, if a
Member achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer complex order
contracts. The highest rebate amount achieved by the Member for the
current calendar month applies retroactively to all Priority Customer
complex order contracts that trade with non-Priority Customer complex
orders in the complex order book executed by the Member during such
calendar month.
    In order to enhance the Exchange's competitive position and to
incentivize Members to increase the amount of Priority Customer complex
orders that they send to the Exchange, the Exchange now proposes to
increase the base amount of the rebate to $0.62 per contract.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to increase the amount of that
rebate even further, on a month-by-month and Member-by-Member basis, if
such Member achieves an ADV of Priority Customer complex order
contracts across all symbols executed during the calendar month, as
follows: If the Member achieves an ADV of 75,000 Priority Customer
complex order contracts, the rebate amount shall be $0.64 per contract
per leg; if the Member achieves an ADV of 125,000 Priority Customer
complex order contracts, the rebate amount shall be $0.66 per contract
per leg; and if the Member achieves an ADV of 250,000 Priority Customer
complex order contracts, the rebate amount shall be $0.67 per contract
per leg.
    Additionally, the Exchange provides ISE Market Makers with a two
cent discount when trading against orders that are preferenced to them.
This discount is applicable when ISE Market Makers remove liquidity in
the Non-Penny Pilot Symbols from the complex order book. With the
proposed increase to the ``taker'' fee for complex orders in the Non-
Penny Pilot Symbols, ISE Market Makers who remove liquidity in the Non-
Penny Pilot Symbols from the complex order book by trading with orders
that are preferenced to them will be charged $0.73 per contract.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \9\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange
Act \10\ in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange members and
other persons using its facilities. The impact of the proposal upon the
net fees paid by a particular market participant will depend on a
number of variables, most important of which will be its propensity to
interact with and respond to certain types of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to charge ISE
Market Maker, Firm Proprietary and Customer (Professional) orders a
``taker'' fee of $0.75 per contract for complex orders in the Non-Penny
Pilot Symbols because the Exchange is seeking to recoup the cost
associated with paying increased rebates for Priority Customer complex
orders. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are also reasonable and
equitably allocated because they are within the range of fees assessed
by other exchanges employing similar pricing schemes.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide rebates for Priority Customer complex orders when these orders
trade with Non-Priority Customer complex orders in the complex order
book because paying a rebate would continue to attract additional order
flow to the Exchange and create liquidity in the symbols that are
subject to the rebate, which the Exchange believes ultimately will
benefit all market participants who trade on ISE. The Exchange already
provides these types of rebates, and is now merely proposing to
increase those rebate amounts. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rebates are competitive with rebates provided by other exchanges and
are therefore reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that
direct orders to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and equitable to
provide a two cent discount to ISE Market Makers on preferenced orders
as an incentive for them to quote in the complex order book. The
Exchange notes that PHLX currently provides a similar discount.
Accordingly, ISE Market Makers who remove liquidity in the Non-Penny
Pilot Symbols from the complex order book will be charged $0.73 per
contract when trading with orders that are preferenced to them. The
Exchange notes that with this proposed fee change, the Exchange, while
increasing this fee, will continue to maintain a two cent differential
that was previously in place.
    The complex order pricing employed by the Exchange has proven to be
an effective pricing mechanism and attractive to Exchange participants
and their customers. The Exchange believes that increasing its complex
order rebates will attract additional complex order business to the
Exchange. The Exchange further believes that the Exchange's complex
order rebates and its maker/taker fees are not unfairly discriminatory
because these fee structures are consistent with fee structures that
exist today at other options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees and rebates are fair, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the proposed fees and rebates are
consistent with price differentiation that exists today at other option
exchanges. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants can readily direct order flow to another
exchange if they deem fee levels at a particular exchange to be
excessive. With this proposed rebate change, the Exchange believes it
remains an attractive venue for market participants to trade complex
orders.

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\11\ 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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange 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-ISE-2012-63 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-ISE-2012-63. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-63 and should be
submitted on or before August 7, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17328 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31494-31495]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10009-68-Region 8]

Public Water System Supervision Program Revision for the State of
Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Public notice is hereby given that the state of Montana has
revised its Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program by
establishing Administrative Penalty Authority that applies to its
drinking water program. The EPA has reviewed Montana's submittal, and
determined that the Administrative Penalty Authority is no less
stringent than the federal regulations. The EPA is proposing to approve
the Administrative Penalty Authority requirements for Montana.
    This approval action does not extend to public water systems in
Indian country. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Unit B.

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing on this
determination by June 25, 2020. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION,
Unit C, for details. Should no timely and appropriate request for a
hearing be received, and the Regional Administrator (RA) does not elect
to hold a hearing on his/her own motion, this determination shall
become applicable June 25, 2020 and no further public notice will be
issued.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a public hearing should be submitted to: Robert
Clement by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Clement, Drinking Water B
Section, EPA Region 8, Denver, Colorado by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provisions of section
1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C. 300g-2, and 40
CFR 142.13, public notice is hereby given that the state of Montana has
revised its PWSS program by adopting federal regulations for the
Penalty Authority Rule that correspond to the NPDWR in 40 CFR parts 141
and 142. The EPA has reviewed Montana's regulations and determined they
are no less stringent than the federal regulations. The EPA is
proposing to approve Montana's primacy revision for the Penalty
Authority Rule. This approval action does not extend to public water
systems in Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Please see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, Unit B.

A. Why are revisions to State programs necessary?

    States with primary PWSS enforcement authority must comply with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 142 to maintain primacy. They must adopt
regulations that are at least as stringent as the NPDWRs at 40 CFR
parts 141 and 142, as well as adopt all new and revised NPDWRs in order
to retain primacy (40 CFR 142.12(a)).

B. How does this action affect Indian country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Montana?

    The EPA's approval of Montana's revised PWSS program does not
extend to Indian country as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. Indian country
in Montana generally includes (1) lands within the exterior boundaries
of the following Indian reservations located within Montana: The Crow
Indian Reservation, the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, the Flathead
Reservation, the Fort Belknap Reservation, the Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, and the Rocky
Boy's Reservation; (2) any land held in trust by the United States for
an Indian tribe; and (3) any other areas which are ``Indian country''
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA or eligible Indian tribes, as
appropriate, will retain PWSS program responsibilities over public
water systems in Indian country.

C. Requesting a Hearing

    Any interested party may request a hearing on this determination
within thirty (30) days of this notice. All requests shall include the
following information: Name, address, and telephone number of the
individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; a brief
statement of interest and information to be submitted at the hearing;
and the signature of the interested individual or responsible official,
if made on behalf of an organization or other entity. Frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the RA.
    Notice of any hearing shall be given not less than fifteen (15)
days prior to the time scheduled for the hearing and will be made by
the RA in the Federal Register and in a newspaper of general
circulation in the state. A notice will also be sent to both the
person(s) requesting the hearing and the state. The hearing notice will
include a statement of purpose of the hearing, information regarding
time and location for the hearing, and the address and telephone number
where interested persons may obtain further information. The RA will
issue an order affirming or rescinding the determination upon review of
the hearing record. Please bring this notice to the attention of any
persons known by you to have an interest in this determination.

    Dated: May 15, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-11162 Filed 5-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 56752-56753]
[DOCID:fr04oc07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2210-155]

Appalachian Power Company; Notice of Application for Amendment of
License and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

September 27, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Amendment of license for variance of
minimum flow release.
    b. Project No.: 2210-155.
    c. Date Filed: September 24, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Appalachian Power Company.
    e. Name of Project: Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: On the Roanoke River, in Bedford, Campbell, Franklin,
Pittsylvania, and Roanoke Counties, Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Teresa P. Rogers, Environmental and
Regulatory Affairs Supervisor, Appalachian Power Company, P.O. Box No.
2021, Roanoke, VA 24022,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: CarLisa Linton-Peters, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene and protests:
October 29, 2007.
    Please include the project number (P-2210) on any comments or
motions filed. All documents (an original and eight copies) should be
filed with:

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper filings, see 18 CFR 385.2001
(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the
``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filings. The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    k. Description of Request: Appalachian Power Company (licensee) is
requesting modifications to and a continuance of its current 45-day
temporary variance of the minimum flow release requirement under
license article 29 for the Smith Mountain Pumped Storage Hydroelectric
Project. Because of persistent drought conditions in the general
project area and the need to conserve water, Appalachian Power Company,
after consultation with state resource agencies, requests that it be
allowed to continue a temporary variance under several modifying
conditions (see licensee's request filed September 24, 2007), until
Smith Mountain Lake returns to an adjusted elevation of 794.0 feet.
    Concurrent with this notice, the Commission granted the licensee's
requests (see Order Granting Temporary Amendment of Minimum Flow
Requirement per Article 29, Project No. 2210-155), but reserved
authority to require changes to project operation based upon comments
received from this notice.
    l. Location of the Application: The filing is available for
inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room,
located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://ferc.gov using

the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/esubscription.asp to

be notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address listed in
item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take,
the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but
only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application (see item (j)
above).
    o. Any filing must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number of the particular application to which the
filing refers.
    p. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
    q. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper filings. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-19590 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27371-27373]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11491]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74901; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Fees
for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades To Add a Late Fee in Connection
With Failure To Submit the Non-Display Use Declaration

May 7, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on April 30, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE
Arca Trades to add a late fee in connection with failure to submit the
non-display use declaration, operative on May 1, 2015. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text

of 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 proposes to amend the fees for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE
Arca Trades, as set forth on the NYSE Arca Equities Proprietary Market
Data Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule''), to add a late fee in connection
with failure to submit an updated non-display use declaration. The
proposed change to the Fee Schedule would be operative on May 1, 2015.
    The Exchange established the current fees for non-display services
for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades in April 2013 and amended those
fees in September 2014.\4\ The 2013 Non-Display Filing established a
requirement that data recipients that receive real-time NYSE Arca
market data subject to Non-Display Use fees submit a declaration with
respect to their use of non-display data.\5\ In connection with the fee
changes in the 2014 Non-Display Filing, the Exchange required data
recipients that receive real-time NYSE Arca market data subject to Non-
Display Use fees to complete and submit an updated Non-Display Use
Declaration by September 1, 2014.\6\ The 2014 Non-Display Filing also
established that data recipients are required to submit an updated
annual Non-Display Use Declaration by January 31st of each year
beginning in 2016. In addition, if a data recipient's use of real-time
NYSE Arca market data changes at any time after the data recipient
submits a Non-Display Use Declaration, the data recipient must inform
the Exchange of the change by completing and submitting at the time of
the change an updated declaration reflecting the change of use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 69315 (Apr. 5,
2013), 78 FR 21668 (Apr. 11, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-37) (``2013
Non-Display Filing'') and 73011 (Sept. 5, 2014), 79 FR 54315 (Sept.
11, 2014) (SR-NYSEArca-2014-93) (``2014 Non-Display Filing'').
    \5\ The non-display fee structure established in the 2013 Non-
Display Filing replaced a monthly reporting obligation with respect
to non-display devices with the requirement to submit the non-
display use declaration. The Exchange also notes that if a data
recipient only subscribes to products for which there are no non-
display usage fees, e.g., NYSE Arca Realtime Reference Prices, then
no declaration is required.
    \6\ The current form of the Non-Display Use Declaration
reflected the changes to the non-display fees set forth in the 2014
Non-Display Filing and replaced the NYSE Euronext Non-Display Use
Declaration established in connection with the 2013 Non-Display
Filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that if a data recipient does not timely submit
a Non-Display Use Declaration, the Exchange does not have up-to-date
information about the data recipient's data use and therefore may not
be charging the correct fees to the data recipient. In order to
correctly assess fees for the non-display use of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE
Arca Trades, the Exchange needs to have current and accurate
information about the use of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades. The
failure of data recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration on
time leads to potentially incorrect billing and administrative burdens,
including tracking and obtaining late Non-Display Use Declarations and
correcting customer records in connection with late Non-Display Use
Declarations. The purpose of the proposed late fee is to incent data
recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration promptly to avoid
the administrative burdens associated with the late submission of Non-
Display Use Declarations.
    The Exchange proposes to establish a Non-Display Declaration Late
Fee of $1,000 per month. The proposed fee would be charged to any data
recipient that pays an Access Fee for NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca
Trades that has failed to timely complete and submit a Non-Display Use
Declaration.
    With respect to the Non-Display Use Declaration that was due by
September 1, 2014, the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee would apply to
NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades data recipients that have not
submitted the Non-Display Use Declaration by June 30, 2015, and would
apply beginning July 1, 2015 and for each month thereafter until the
data recipient has completed and submitted the Non-Display Use
Declaration. With respect to the annual Non-Display Use Declaration due
by January 31st of each year beginning in 2016, the Non-Display
Declaration Late Fee would apply to data recipients that fail to
complete and submit the annual Non-Display Use Declaration by the
January 31st due date, and would apply beginning February 1st and for
each month thereafter until the data recipient has completed and
submitted the annual Non-Display Use Declaration.\7\ A Non-Display Use
Declaration that is clearly incomplete would not be considered to have
been completed and submitted to the Exchange on time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange has established the Non-Display Declaration
Late Fee with respect to NYSE Arca Integrated Feed and in that
filing adopted the text in endnote 2, which specifies the effective
dates for the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee as described above,
so the text in endnote 2 to the Fee Schedule is not new. See SR-
NYSEArca-2015-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to adding the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee for NYSE
Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades to the Fee Schedule, the Exchange
proposes to add an endnote to the Fee Schedule that would specify the
effective dates for the Non-Display Declaration Late Fee as described
above, and to change the numbering for the existing endnotes as needed.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
provides an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among users and
recipients of the data and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination among customers, issuers, and brokers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to impose a late fee in
connection with the submission of the Non-Display Use Declaration. In
order to correctly assess fees for the non-display use of NYSE Arca BBO
and NYSE Arca Trades, the Exchange needs to have current and accurate
information about the use of NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE Arca Trades. The
failure of data recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration on
time leads to potentially incorrect billing and administrative burdens,
including tracking and obtaining late Non-Display Use Declarations and
correcting and following up on payments owed in connection with late
Non-Display Use Declarations. The purpose of the late fee is to incent
data recipients to submit the Non-Display Use Declaration promptly to
avoid the administrative burdens associated with the late submission of
Non-Display Use Declarations. The Non-Display Declaration Late Fee is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all
data recipients that choose to subscribe to the NYSE Arca BBO and NYSE
Arca Trades feed.
    The Non-Display Declaration Late Fee is also consistent with
similar pricing adopted in 2013 by the Consolidated Tape Association
(``CTA'').\10\ The CTA imposes a monthly fee of $2,500 for

each of Network A and Network B for firms that fail to comply with
their reporting obligations in a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70010 (July 19,
2013), 78 FR 44984 (July 25, 2013) (SR-CTA/CQ-2013-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. An exchange's ability to
price its proprietary market data feed products is constrained by
actual competition for the sale of proprietary market data products,
the joint product nature of exchange platforms, and the existence of
alternatives to the Exchange's proprietary data. In addition to being
able to choose which proprietary data products (if any) to use and how
to use them, a user can avoid the late fees that are the subject of
this filing entirely by simply complying with the requisite deadlines.
    In setting the proposed fees, the Exchange considered the
competitiveness of the market for proprietary data and all of the
implications of that competition. The Exchange believes that it has
considered all relevant factors and has not considered irrelevant
factors in order to establish fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably
discriminatory fees and an equitable allocation of fees among all
users. The existence of fierce competition to sell proprietary data
products and for order flow, as well as numerous alternatives to the
Exchange's products, including proprietary data from other sources,
ensures that the Exchange cannot set unreasonable fees, or fees that
are unreasonably discriminatory, when vendors and subscribers can elect
these alternatives or choose not to purchase a specific proprietary
data product if the attendant fees are not justified by the returns
that any particular vendor or data recipient would achieve through the
purchase (the returns on use being a particularly important aspect of
non-display uses of proprietary data).

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \11\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \12\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \13\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEARCA-2015-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-36. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used.

    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the NYSE's principal office and
on its Internet Web site at www.nyse.com. 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-NYSEARCA-2015-36, and should be
submitted on or before June 3, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-11491 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29761-29762]
[FR Doc No: C1-2016-21203]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9, 22, 85, 86, 600, 1033, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1042,
1043, 1065, 1066, and 1068

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 523, 534, 535, and 538

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827; NHTSA-2014-0132; FRL-9950-25-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS16; RIN 2127-AL52

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2

Correction

0
In rule document 2016-21203, appearing on pages 73478-74274, in the
issue of Tuesday, October 25, 2016, make the following corrections:

Sec.  1036.805  Symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms. [Corrected]

0
1. On page 74044, in paragraph (b), the table should read as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Unit in terms of SI
            Symbol                   Quantity             Unit            Unit symbol           base units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a.............................  atomic hydrogen-   mole per mole....  mol/mol...........  1.
                                 to-carbon ratio.
b.............................  atomic oxygen-to-  mole per mole....  mol/mol...........  1.
                                 carbon ratio.
CdA...........................  drag area........  meter squared....  m\2\..............  m\2\.
Crr...........................  coefficient of     kilogram per       kg/tonne..........  10-\3\.
                                 rolling            metric ton.
                                 resistance.
D.............................  distance.........  miles or meters..  mi or m...........  m.
e.............................  mass weighted      grams/ton-mile...  g/ton-mi..........  g/kg-km.
                                 emission result.
Eff...........................  efficiency.
Em............................  mass-specific net  megajoules/        MJ/kg.............  m\2\[middot]s-\2\.
                                 energy content.    kilogram.
fn............................  angular speed      revolutions per    r/min.............  [pi][middot]30[middot]
                                 (shaft).           minute.                                s-\1\.
i.............................  indexing
                                 variable.
ka............................  drive axle ratio.
ktopgear......................  highest available
                                 transmission
                                 gear.
m.............................  mass.............  pound mass or      lbm or kg.........  kg.
                                                    kilogram.
M.............................  molar mass.......  gram per mole....  g/mol.............  10-
                                                                                \3\[middot]kg[middot]
                                                                                mol-\1\.
M.............................  vehicle mass.....  kilogram.........  kg................  kg.
Mrotating.....................  inertial mass of   kilogram.........  kg................  kg.
                                 rotating
                                 components.
N.............................  total number in a
                                 series.
P.............................  power............  kilowatt.........  kW................  10\3\[middot]m\2\[midd
                                                                                ot]kg[middot]s-\3\.
T.............................  torque (moment of  newton meter.....  N[middot]m........  m\2\[middot]kg[middot]
                                 force).                                                   s-\2\.
t.............................  time.............  second...........  s.................  s.
[Delta]t......................  time interval,     second...........  s.................  s.
                                 period, 1/
                                 frequency.
UF............................  utility factor.
v.............................  speed............  miles per hour or  mi/hr or m/s......  m[middot]s-\1\.
                                                    meters per
                                                    second.

W.............................  work.............  kilowatt-hour....  kW[middot]hr......  3.6[middot]m\2\[middot
                                                                                ]kg[middot]s-\1\.
wC............................  carbon mass        gram/gram........  g/g...............  1.
                                 fraction.
wCH4N2O.......................  urea mass          gram/gram........  g/g...............  1.
                                 fraction.
x.............................  amount of          mole per mole....  mol/mol...........  1.
                                 substance mole
                                 fraction.
xb............................  brake energy
                                 fraction.
xbl...........................  brake energy
                                 limit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec.  1037.550  Powertrain testing. [Corrected]

0
2. On page 74097, in the third column, TABLE 1 OF Sec.  1037.550--
STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR VALIDATING DUTY CYCLES should read as follows:

  Table 1 of Sec.   1037.550--Statistical Criteria for Validating Duty
                                 Cycles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Parameter \1\                        Speed control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slope, a1.................................  0.990 <= a1 <= 1.010.
Absolute value of intercept,                <=2.0% of maximum test
 [bond]a0[bond].                             speed.
Standard error of estimate, SEE...........  <=2.0% of maximum test
                                             speed.
Coefficient of determination, r\2\........  >=0.990.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Determine values for specified parameters as described in 40 CFR
  1065.514(e) by comparing measured and reference values for fnref,dyno.

[FR Doc. C1-2016-21203 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


United States Environmental Protection Agency

 Region IX Air Division

Technical Support Document

for

 EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

as submitted by the California Air Resources Board

EPA’s Analysis of

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District’s

Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps

October 2010

Prepared by Joanne Wells

Approved by Andrew Steckel

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Submitted Rule

Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps originally adopted on April 11,
1991 as Rule 465.2, amended on December 17, 1992, and submitted on
August 24, 2007. The submittal was determined complete on September 17,
2007.  There are no other submittals of this rule on which EPA has not
acted.

Applicable SIP Rule

The SIP-approved rule is SJVUAPCD Rule 465.2, Crude Oil Production Sumps
adopted on April 11, 1991, amended on September 19, 1991 and approved
into SIP on December 13, 1994 (59 FR 64132).

Background

On January 2, 2008 (73 FR 48), EPA published a direct final approval of
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).  These
revisions concerned local rules that address reduction of animal matter,
and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from crude oil operations
and petroleum refinery equipment, asphalt paving and maintenance, and
petroleum solvent dry cleaning.  The direct final action was published
without prior proposal because EPA anticipated no adverse comment.  The
direct final rule stated that if adverse comments were received by
February 1, 2008, EPA would publish a timely removal in the Federal
Register.  EPA received a timely adverse comment.  Consequently, we
removed the direct final approval of SJVUAPCD Rules 4104, 4402, 4404,
4453, 4454, 4625, 4641, and 4672. (See 73 FR 13440)

In today’s action we are addressing SJVUAPCD Rule 4402. We do not
intend to take final action based on our January 2008 proposal regarding
this rule. As a result, we are not providing a thorough summary or reply
to comments submitted in response to our January 2008 proposal regarding
the SJVUAPCD Rule. Generally, the comments included concerns regarding
the estimated emissions from crude oil sumps, the large number of
exemptions in the rule and whether this rule complied with the
requirements for reasonably available control technology (RACT)
described in CAA Section 182(b)(2) and elsewhere.

Purposes of Rule and Rule Amendments

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that
control VOCs, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air
pollutants which harm human health and the environment.  This rule was
developed as part of the local agency’s program to control VOC
emissions.  Specifically, Rule 4402 is designed to limit VOC emissions
from crude oil production sumps.

Rule amendments include:

The rule has been renumbered and the format updated.

Rule purpose is added.

Definition of VOC is deleted.

The exemptions for sumps at petroleum refineries (I.A) and the exemption
for pits and ponds (I.B) have been moved from Section I (Applicability)
to Section 4.0 (Exemptions) as sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7.

Rule Evaluation Criteria

EPA is primarily using the following three criteria to evaluate Rule
4402.

Enforceability – CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations
submitted to EPA for SIP approval must be clear and legally enforceable.

Anti-Backsliding - CAA §110(l) restricts certain SIP revisions that
would relax existing SIP-approved requirements.

Rule Stringency – CAA §172(b) and 182(a)(2)(A) require ozone
nonattainment areas to implement RACT for ozone precursors. The SJVUAPCD
regulates an extreme 1-hr ozone nonattainment area and an extreme 8-hr
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81) and must fulfill the
requirements of RACT.

RACT Discussion

SJVUAPCD 2009 RACT Demonstration

On April 16, 2009, SJVUAPCD adopted its “RACT Demonstration for Ozone
SIP,” which provides the District’s demonstration that RACT is
implemented for all appropriate sources. This includes several pages
discussing Rule 4402. (See Cover and applicable pages attached.) In
summary, SJVUAPCD states that:

The 2007 emissions inventory estimated VOC emissions from crude oil
sumps in the district at approximately 2.6 tons/day.  This updated
emissions estimate is based on survey data collected from oil producers
for 2007. See attachment 3, 2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory
Methodology, 310- Oil Production Fugitive Losses.

This emissions estimate of 2.6 tons/day is in contrast to SJVUAPCD’s
previous emissions estimate of 3 to 60 tons/day based on 1990’s data
from the Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Energy database. This
data was largely found to be inaccurate and did not account for many
closed and inactive sumps. See SJVUAPCD’s RACT Demonstration for Ozone
SIP for further explanation.

There are no national guidance (CTG or ACT) or regulation (NSPS, NESHAP,
or MACT) to help define RACT for this category.

Rule 4402 imposes similar requirements to those in Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) Rule 71.4. Although VCAPCD’s rule
does not allow 1st stage sumps and SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 does allow 1st
stage sumps, SJVUAPCD does not believe that Rule 4402 is less stringent.
In addition, the 2007 emissions inventory survey data shows that there
are no active 1st stage sumps operating in SJVUAPCD (see attachment 3).

Santa Barbara County (SBCAPCD) is the only other California district
that exempts small producers of light or heavy crude (less than 150
barrels/day) from regulation. SJVUAPCD exempts small producer 2nd and
3rd stage sumps less than 1000 square feet surface area used for only
heavy crude oil (small producer is less than 6000 barrels/day at all
locations in county).  SJVUAPCD also exempts very small producers (150
barrels/day) with 2nd and 3rd stage sumps less than 5000 square feet
surface area used only for heavy crude oil. SJVUAPCD states that their
exemptions for small producers are similar to the SBCAPCD exemption.

Based on low true vapor pressure (TVP) and low emissions from heavy
crude, the VOC emissions from 2nd and 3rd stage sumps from small and
very small producers are relatively low and to require them to install
and operate a fixed or floating cover would not be economically
feasible. SJVUAPCD estimated the cost effectiveness of a rigid floating
cover for a 5000 sq. ft. second stage sump containing heavy crude oil to
be $64,800 per ton of VOC reduced. (See RACT Demonstration for Ozone
SIP, Page 4-79)

Exemptions for minimal VOC emissions (0.007 lbs/sq.ft./day) and clean
produced water (35 milligrams/liter) are still appropriate because the
emissions are very low and installing controls would be economically
infeasible. SJVUAPCD states that the cost of controlling VOC emissions
from these low emission sumps and ponds would be significantly higher
than the cost of controlling emissions from the heavy crude oils sumps
($64,800 per ton of VOC reduced for 2nd stage, as noted above).

Requirements found in other California District Rules

The following is a list of more stringent requirements found in
analogous rules from neighboring agencies:

South Coast (SCAQMD) Rule 1176 and San Luis Obispo (SLOCAPCD) Rule 419
require floating covers to have seals and the gap cannot exceed 1/8”
for a cumulative length of 97% of the perimeter. Rule 4402 allows a 1
inch gap and does not require seals.

SCAQMD Rule 1176 and SBCAPCD Rule 344 require that fixed covers be
equipped with an air pollution control (APC) device with a control
efficiency of 95% of VOCs. Rule 4402 only requires a pressure/vacuum
valve set to within ten percent of maximum safe working pressure of
cover.

SCAQMD Rule 1176 requires monthly to annual inspections for leaks and
testing operation of APC equipment. Rule 4402 does not require
inspections.

SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 has a large number of exemptions either not found or
broader and less restrictive than exemptions found in other district
rules. These exemptions allow uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted
2nd and 3rd stage sumps and ponds. See detailed review of exemptions
below.

Rule 4402 does not define “intermittent” as used in Section 3.7
definition of Pit or place any limit on the amount of time oily water
can be kept in an emergency pit before it is cleaned up.  SLOCAPCD Rule
419 requires clean-up to begin within 24 hours and limits clean-up to 15
days and SBCAPCD Rule 344 limits use of pits to less than 30 days per
year. Lack of a time limit would allow uncontrolled emissions for an
unlimited amount of time.

 Discussion of Rule 4402 Exemptions

Rule 4402 includes a number of exemptions where requirements of the rule
do not apply. The following is a brief review and discussion of all the
exemptions listed in the rule.

Small producers and very small producers (4.1.1 & 4.1.3):

Exempts small producer (6000 barrels/day average over 2 years from all
operations within the county) 2nd and 3rd stage sumps that are less than
1000 sq. ft surface area and are only used for heavy crude oil.

Also exempts very small producer (300 barrels/day average over 2 years
from all operations in the county and only 50 barrels/day per lease) 2nd
and 3rd stage sumps that are less than 5000 sq. ft. surface and that are
solely used for heavy crude oil.

The only other California district rule found that exempts small
producer 2nd & 3rd stage sumps is SBCAPCD Rule 344 which exempts small
producers (less than 150 barrels/day average over 1 year) with no
restriction on surface area of sump or type of crude oil.

SBCAPCD Rule 344 also exempts any 2nd or 3rd stage sump less than 1000
sq. ft surface area.

SLOCAPCD Rule 419 exempts pits, ponds, and sumps less than 100 sq. ft.
surface area.

In the RACT Demonstration, SJVUAPCD estimates the cost effectiveness for
controlling the emissions from a 5000 sq. ft 2nd stage sump containing
heavy crude oil to be about $64,800 per ton of VOC reduced and that the
cost per ton would be even higher for 3rd Stage sumps.  The district
then concludes that due to economic infeasibility, they believe that
these exemptions for small and very small producers are still
appropriate. (See page 4-79 of SJVUAPCD RACT Demonstration for Ozone
SIP)

2nd and 3rd stage sumps used solely for clean produced water containing
less than 35 mg/l VOCs (4.1.2).

SCAQMD, VCAPCD, and SLOCAPCD rules exempt sumps used for wastewater that
do not exceed 5 mg/l of VOCs.

SJVUAPCD’s RACT analysis states that the emissions from clean produced
water are significantly less than heavy crude and the cost for
controlling emissions from these low emission sumps would be
significantly higher per ton of VOC reduced than for heavy crude oil
sumps.   Due to this higher cost, it would be economically infeasible to
control these emissions and therefore this exemption is appropriate.

Any sump with estimated emissions of 0.007 lbs/sf-day or less as
established by ARB flux-box method (4.1.4).

Emissions of 0.007 lbs/sf-day is slightly lower than the uncontrolled
emissions factor for light crude from 3rd stage sumps (0.008
lbs/sf-day), and slightly higher than the emission factor for 3rd stage
sumps for heavy crude oil (0.005 lbs/sf-day).

Therefore, it is likely that 3rd stage light crude oil sumps would not
be exempt, but 3rd stage heavy crude oil sumps could be exempt. We do
not know if this exemption is used by any crude oil producers at this
time.

SJVUAPCD states in their RACT analysis that controlling emissions from
these low emission sumps would be economically infeasible as stated
above for sumps containing only clean produced water.

No other California district rule was found to have a similar exemption.

Any sump used less than 7 days in one month and not more than 21 days
per year (4.1.5).

No other districts were found to have a similar exemption.

Sumps at petroleum refineries (4.1.6)

Sumps located at petroleum refineries are exempt.

Rule 4402 is intended to control emissions from crude oil production
sumps and is not meant to address sumps at petroleum refineries.

Pits or Ponds (4.1.7)

Pits by definition in Rule 4402 are used only intermittently or for
emergency collection of crude oil and water and not for oil water
separation.

SBCAPCD exempts pits used for emergencies that are used less than 30
days per year and VCAPCD also exempts emergency pits.

SLOCAPCD exempts emergency pits if cleanup is implemented within 24
hours and is completed within 15 days.

Ponds by definition in Rule 4402 are used only to store clean produced
water (less than 35 mg/l VOCs) and not used for separation of oil and
water.

SCAQMD and other air districts set the limit for clean water at 5 mg/l
of VOCs.

We understand that many ponds in the San Joaquin Valley have been closed
under Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) order, but other
ponds continue to operate in the district. (See Attachment 5)

These ponds can cover many acres and handle a large volume of oily
wastewater (as much as a million gallons per day). For example, see
RWQCB Order No. R5-2002-0223, Waste Discharge Requirements for Valley
Waste Disposal Company, Broad Creak No. 2 Facility (Attachment 4).
Emissions from these ponds are not included in SJVUAPCD’s current VOC
emissions estimate (2.6 ton/day) for crude oil sumps because they are
exempt. It is not known if the VOC emissions from the ponds are
significant or not. The ponds that initially receive wastewater from oil
production would have the highest VOC concentrations and are of
particular concern.

Rule Evaluation

Enforceability and Anti-Backsliding

The amendments to this rule are largely administrative, do not
substantively change or relax requirements, but make the rule slightly
clearer and more consistent with other SJVUAPCD rules. The rule is
generally enforceable, although several test methods are outdated and/or
inappropriate.

RACT

We concur with SJVUAPCD’s analysis that Rule 4402 imposes some
requirements that are similar to the requirements found in other
California district rules for controlling VOC emissions from crude oil
sumps. However, SJVUAPCD has not adequately demonstrated that Rule 4402
implements RACT in light of the more stringent requirements found in
these rules from other California air districts, some of which are in
attainment or are designated as moderate nonattainment for ozone.

Rule Deficiencies

The following deficiencies preclude full approval of Rule 4402 into the
SIP.

SJVUAPCD should strengthen these requirements to help implement RACT or
demonstrate why such improvements are not appropriate in light of
analogous requirements in neighboring districts.

Section 5.1.2 allows a 1 inch gap and does not require seals for rigid
floating covers.  In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(e)(2)(B)(vi) and
SLOCAPCD Rule 419 D.2.e. require rigid floating covers to have seals,
the gap cannot exceed 1/8” for a cumulative length of 95% of the
perimeter, and no single gap may exceed ½ inch.

Section 5.2.5 requires fixed covers to be equipped with a
pressure/vacuum valve set to within ten percent of maximum safe working
pressure.  In contrast, SCAQMD Rule 1176(2)(A)(ii) and (6)(A) and
SBCAPCD Rule 344 D.2.b.2 require that fixed covers be equipped with a
95% efficient Air Pollution Control (APC) device.

Rule 4402 does not require periodic inspection of covers and APC
equipment to ensure proper operation.  In contrast, SCAQMD Rule
1176(f)(C) requires periodic leak inspection and APC testing.

Rule 4402 has exemptions that are more broad than those found in other
district rules. SJVUAPCD should analyze whether these exemptions
continue to be appropriate. This analysis should consider more current
cost data than used in the 2009 RACT Analysis, and should consider
alternative disposal methods (e.g., underground injection, tanks, or
additional pretreatment) in addition to sump and pond covers. The
following exemptions are of  particular concern:

Uncontrolled VOC emissions from exempted 2nd and 3rd stage sumps.
Section 4.1.1 exempts operations less than 6000 barrels per day with
sumps less than 1000 sf and section 4.1.3 exempts operations less than
300 barrels per day with sumps less than 5000 sf from substantive
requirements.  No other neighboring districts allow exemptions for small
producers except for SBCAPCD Rule 344, which is more restrictive.

Section 4.1.7 exempts ponds of “clean produced water” with less than
35 mg/l VOC from Rule 4402 requirements. In contrast, SCAQMD Rule
1176(i)(5)(J), VCAPCD Rule 71.4 C.1.c and SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C.4 exempt
wastewater sumps only where the VOC/ROC content does not exceed 5 mg/l
at the inlet. Of particular concern are VOC emissions from the ponds
that initially receive the oily wastewater from oil production
facilities. Alternatives including additional pretreatment to lower the
VOC content and other disposal methods such as underground injection
should be evaluated.

Rule 4402 does not limit the time that oil or oily water can be kept in
an emergency pit.  In contrast, SLOCAPCD Rule 419 C. 2 requires clean-up
to begin within 24 hours and finish within 15 days.

Rule 4402 allows 1st stage sumps. In contrast, SBCAPCD Rule 344 and
VCAPCD Rule 71.4 do not allow the operation of 1st stage sumps.

Provisions should be added in Rule 4402 or Rule 4623 (Storage of Organic
Liquids) that ensure that tanks used to replace the 1st stage crude oil
sumps have adequate VOC controls. We understand that many 1st stage
sumps have already been replaced with tanks; the district should ensure
that emission controls for all these tanks are adequate.

2.	The following revisions are needed to improve rule clarity and
enforceability consistent with CAA section 110(a).

Please remove the language at the end of Section 5.3 that states “If
replacement tank exclusively serves identical function of sump replaced,
permitting of such tank shall not be considered an emission change for
the purposes of Rule 2201 (New and Modified Source Review Rule)”.  Any
exemptions to NSR requirements should be evaluated in the context of
SJVUAPCD’s NSR program (e.g., Rule 2020) and incorporated within the
NSR program only if appropriate. Such exemptions should not be in source
specific prohibitory rules like Rule 4402.

Revise section 6.2 Test Methods to remove and/or replace inappropriate
or outdated test methods such as 6.2.1 ARB Method 432, which is designed
for paints and coatings and not oily wastewater. We also recommend
adding EPA Test Method 21 in section 6.2 for determining leaks.

Update the definition of clean product water (Section 3.1) replacing
outdated EPA Test Methods 4.13.2, 418.2 and 8240 that used CFC-113 as
the extraction solvent.  The new test methods using non-CFC extraction
solvents are EPA Method 1664A and EPA Method 8260. See guidance
documents referenced below.

Please revise section 6.1 (Recordkeeping) to:

Add requirement for facilities to keep records of all inspections for
leaks and testing of APC devices (for example, see SCAQMD Rule 1176 (g)
(1)).

Add requirement to document use of emergency pits, including when use
started, clean-up started and clean-up finished.

Require documentation justifying any exemptions claimed under section 4,
including 4.1.7, which exempts pits and ponds.

Add requirements to verify the sump surface area and the annual
production rates for both the small producers and very small producers
in section 6.1.1.

Add requirement to keep all records for at least two, and preferably
five years.

EPA Action

The revisions to submitted Rule 4402 are largely administrative changes
that marginally improve the SIP, but the deficiencies discussed above
preclude full approval. As a result, EPA staff recommends a simultaneous
limited approval and limited disapproval of the August 24, 2007
submittal of SJVUAPCD Rule 4402 pursuant to section 110(k) of the CAA as
amended in 1990. If finalized as proposed, the rule deficiencies
identified above would trigger CAA Section 110(m) sanction and Section
110(c) federal implementation plan (FIP) obligations because the San
Joaquin Valley is an extreme nonattainment area for ozone and is
required to implement RACT.

EPA Recommendations

The following revisions are not currently the basis for rule
disapproval, but are recommended as improvements when this rule is
amended.

We suggest deleting section 7.0 Compliance Schedule since it is no
longer applicable.

We suggest increasing the requirements for testing wastewater at each
inlet to the clean produced water ponds from annually to least quarterly
to ensure ongoing compliance with wastewater VOC limits.

Rule 4402 does not include controls for crude oil well cellars. We
suggest that SJVUAPCD evaluate whether to include requirements for
controlling emissions from crude oil well cellars in Rule 4402 or as a
separate rule.

Guidance and Policy Documents

Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules and
RACT requirements consistently include the following:

Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that
concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987).

Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation
Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.

Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations, EPA (May 25, 1988).  [The Bluebook]

Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,
EPA Region 9 (August 21, 2001). [The Little Bluebook]

RACT Qs & As-Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT): Questions
and Answers, EPA, William T. Harnett, May 18, 2006.

Clean Water Act Analytical Methods, Method 1664A, Oil and Grease
HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/oil/oilfaq.html" \t
"_blank" http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/methods/method/oil/oilfaq.html

Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods
(SW-846) Method 8260,  U.S. EPA.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm"
\t "_blank"
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/testmethods/sw846/online/index.htm

Attachments

Submitted SJVUAPCD rules plus applicable SIP SJVUAPCD rules.

2009 RACT SIP, SJVUAPCD (April 16, 2009).  [Cover plus sections relevant
to SJVUAPCD Rule 4402].

2007 Area Source Emissions Inventory Methodology: 310-Oil Production
Fugitive Losses, SJVUAPCD Rev. Date: 23 Jan 09.

Order No. R5-2002-0223, Waste Discharge Requirements for Valley Wastse
Disposal Company,, Broad Creek No. 2 Facility, Midway-Sunset & Buena
Vista Oil Fields, Kern County, California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, Central Valley Region.

Record of telephone conversation, between Joanne Wells, EPA, and Doug
Wachtell, RWQCB, 5/26/10.

 PAGE   9