Technical Support Document for the GSMNP 8 Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area An evaluation of the extent and timing of 8 hour ozone events in the Great Smokey Mountains National Park area was performed with several different approaches being used to help identify and quantify the various meteorological events that influence development of ozone in the GSMNP.

First the hourly ozone data was evaluated to identify the presence of typical diurnal fluctuations in daily ozone levels and determine if the low elevation sites were similar to the high elevation monitoring sites. ( See graphics 1 & 2 for elevation analysis)

The evaluation was done with a comparison to the timing of the peaking of ozone during the day. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that the high elevation sites, ( above 2500 feet elevation), do not exhibit the typical diurnal patterns seen at low elevation monitoring sites ( below 2500 feet elevation). ( See attachment 1, 2, 3)

The lack of peaking at mid day with significant declines overnight implies that the presence of ozone in the area of monitoring is not being influenced by the typical photochemical reactions and that more than likely transport of both ozone and precursors into the area is occurring.

The meteorological data for the monitoring sites ( where both ozone and wind speed/ direction parameters were monitored for) were evaluated. Additionally, backward trajectories were generated for a number of dates during which ozone exceedances were reported in the east Tennessee region. ( See table 1). The results of an analysis of these trajectories indicate that on a number of days transport from Georgia, North Carolina and Kentucky were potentially influencing the high elevation sites. Georgia was identified in 12 exceedance days, North Carolina in 10 and Kentucky in 7 with South Carolina and Alabama each being identified in 3 exceedance day events. The data also revealed that on 5 separate exceedance days, transport was from entirely outside of the state of Tennessee. There were no exceedance days found in which Tennessee was the only contributor to the high elevation sites. Additional summary data for the wind conditions present on these days were also prepared for the same dates. ( See table 2).

Evaluations of the meteorological data were prepared for the individual days on which the exceedances events of concern identified in Table 1 are identified. The results of the evaluation of the meteorological data indicate that on 3 days the winds were blowing from the N to S and 9 days from the S to the N with 6 days with winds from the W to the E. These data represent the " Clingmans Dome site with the 8 hour average calculated to begin at the time of the 8 hour exceedance events. The Knoxville daily wind patterns were also investigated with 6 days of winds from the N, 13 days from the W and 1 day from the E.

An additional independent analysis was also performed by SAI for SESARM and is contained in the draft document, " Early Action Compact Modeling Analysis for the State of Tennessee and Adjacent Areas of Arkansas and Mississippi Draft Technical Support Document March 15, 2004". The summary findings are presented below and reinforce the analysis already prepared and discussed above based on back trajectory analysis and observed wind and ozone patterns at the high elevations in East Tennessee.

A more detailed analysis of the observed ozone data and meteorological conditions for the Knoxville area provided some key findings.

Analysis of the available ozone data reveals that: ° All sites recorded exceedances of the 8 hour ozone NAAQS during the 1996 2002 analysis period. Several of the urban and GSM sites have more than 100 exceedance days and average annual maximum ozone concentrations greater than 100 ppb. ° The average diurnal profiles for ozone exceedance days are generally characterized by a typical diurnal profile with a peak concentration during the midday hours. ° Distinctly different diurnal profiles characterize sites located in the greater Knoxville area and in the GSM. The more urban sites show a mid day peak. The elevated GSM sites show very flat diurnal profiles. The lack of variation throughout the day and specifically the lack of a distinct daytime peak indicates that ozone is transported into this area throughout the day and not specifically formed during the daytime hours). Comparison of the wind patterns for exceedance and non exceedance days indicates that ° For exceedance days in the Knoxville area, the upper level winds suggest a greater tendency for winds aloft to have a southerly component during high ozone days, especially at the time of the evening soundings. Westerly to southwesterly winds dominate the wind roses for the Knoxville area ozone exceedance days.

Other meteorological factors also contribute to the incidence of high ozone in the Knoxville area. Results from an application of the Classification and Regression Tree ( CART) tool enabled an examination of the relative importance of the air quality and meteorological variables in segregating the days according to ozone concentration. The results indicate that: ° High ozone in the Knoxville area is associated with the regional day to day build up of ozone. ° The surface meteorological parameters indicate a correlation between higher ozone concentrations and higher temperatures, lower relative humidity, and lower wind speeds. ° The upper air meteorological parameters indicate that higher 8 hour ozone concentrations occur with high 850 mb temperatures, stable lapse rates, high pressure to the west, and lower wind speeds and southerly wind directions aloft.

Differences among the exceedance days suggest that the high ozone days comprise a variety of conditions, especially with respect to: ° Previous day's maximum ozone concentration. ° Stability and vertical mixing characteristics. ° Surface wind speed and direction. ° Wind direction aloft. ° Cloud cover. ° Upper level pressure/ height patterns.

Three of the key exceedance bins share many similar characteristic and differ primarily with regard to wind and vertical mixing parameters. As for Nashville, one of the exceedance bins is characterized by much lower temperatures and higher wind speeds and is representative of transitional period ( spring or fall) high ozone days. Another of the bins is characterized by very high ozone on the prior day and otherwise very ozone conducive meteorological conditions. Days within this bin have the highest overall ozone concentrations. The results of the AT 3 simulation can be summarized as follows: ° Atlanta metropolitan area contributes to ozone exceedances in Knoxville and Chattanooga.   Of the NOx contributing to the 8 hour exceedance exposure, about 20% overall is attributed to emissions from Atlanta.   Of the NOx contributing to the peak 8 hour values, about 5 15% is attributed to Atlanta on certain exceedance days. ° Background and transported ozone and precursors are important factors for all areas. ° Approximately 40   60% of the ozone is attributed to biogenic VOC emissions. The difference in results using the different design values prompted an examination of the representativeness of the design value. A meteorologically adjusted design value for 2002 was calculated and use of this value gives a future EDV of 87 ppb. Thus, use of a meteorologically adjusted DV is consistent with the use of the 2001 2003 value.

The oxidant tagging results ( as presented in Section 7 of this document) indicate that 8 hour ozone concentrations in the Knoxville area are influenced by emissions from the Atlanta area as well as other areas outside of the ATMOS fine grid. Thus, any regional ozone reductions that are not accounted for in the ATMOS modeling inventory ( such as that from EACs being developed for Augusta, Macon, and other areas in northern Georgia) will contribute positively to lower ozone in the Knoxville region. Graphic 1 ( Knoxville Region and Line for Elevation Analysis)

Graphic 2 ( Relative Elevation Analysis for Knoxville Region) Clingmans Dome Area Knoxville Area Attachments 1 ( Comparison of Typical 2002 Daily Data)

Attachment 2 ( Comparisons of Hourly Data CY 2002)

Attachment 3 ( 8 Hour Exceedance Events Low Elevation sites Vs High Elevation Site 2000  2002) Diurn al Oz one Patterns in East Tennessee 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 8/ 13/ 02 0: 00 8/ 13/ 02 12: 00 8/ 14/ 02 0: 00 Day / Hour CY 2002 1 Hour PPM Ozone Knox Co. Mildred Dr.

470931020 PPM O3 GSMNP Clingm ans Dome 471550102 PPM O3 Diurnal Ozone Patterns in East Tennessee 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 2/ 23/ 02 0: 00 4/ 14/ 02 0: 00 6/ 3/ 02 0: 00 7/ 23/ 02 0: 00 9/ 11/ 02 0: 00 10/ 31/ 02 0: 00 12/ 20/ 02 0: 00 Day / Hour CY 2002 1 Hour PPM Ozone Knox Co. Mildred Dr. 470931020 PPM O3 GSMNP Clingmans Dome 471550102 PPM O3 8 Hour Exc Hour 47 093 1020 Knoxville 2000  2002 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Exc e e da nc e Hour Exc Ho ur 8 Hour Exc Hour 47 155 0101 Clingma ns Dome 2000  2002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 2 1 22 23 Exc e e d anc e Hour Exc Hour Table 1 Table 2 ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour ppb hour 05/ 04/ 01 0.086 11 0.083 11 0.084 11 0.082 11 0.087 14 0.093 15 0.095 17 0.081 21 0.079 20 06/ 18/ 01 0.086 11 0.081 10 0.091 11 0.085 10 0.08 20 0.095 23 0.093 23 0.08 16 0.089 18 06/ 19/ 01 0.1 10 0.09 10 0.09 10 0.095 11 0.081 11 0.094 0 0.093 0 0.073 0 0.077 0 06/ 20/ 01 0.092 11 0.093 11 0.091 11 0.087 11 0.086 14 0.091 16 0.103 20 0.081 15 0.072 17 06/ 21/ 01 0.086 10 0.096 11 0.091 11 0.086 10 0.074 12 0.087 2 0.09 0 0.07 0 0.075 16 07/ 16/ 01 0.09 11 0.081 10 0.098 10 0.09 11 0.072 12 0.08 23 0.074 23 0.063 23 0.071 23 06/ 11/ 02 0.096 9 0.09 11 0.101 11 0.095 11 0.096 16 0.099 18 0.099 0 0.088 8 0.081 0 08/ 05/ 02 0.056 15 0.077 10 0.082 10 0.073 11 0.105 16 0.104 17 0.09 17 0.087 14 08/ 08/ 02 0.084 10 0.098 11 0.083 11 0.078 10 0.105 12 0.1 14 0.102 16 0.091 11 0.05 17 08/ 09/ 02 0.1 11 0.103 11 0.109 11 0.103 10 0.092 12 0.098 13 0.087 0 0.083 8 0.046 18 08/ 11/ 02 0.101 11 0.1 11 0.103 11 0.098 11 0.099 14 0.098 16 0.097 20 0.083 17 0.044 23 08/ 13/ 02 0.077 11 0.079 11 0.085 10 0.081 9 0.087 0 0.104 0 0.104 1 0.089 0 0.068 13 09/ 06/ 02 0.098 10 0.107 11 0.096 10 0.094 10 0.097 12 0.096 12 0.092 1 0.09 8 0.08 0 09/ 10/ 02 0.091 11 0.091 11 0.089 10 0.09 11 0.106 10 0.107 20 0.104 20 0.096 10 0.089 19 06/ 24/ 03 0.091 11 0.089 10 0.086 10 0.091 11 0.096 16 0.081 16 0.077 23 0.079 12 0.075 22 06/ 25/ 03 0.1 12 0.093 11 0.095 10 0.097 10 0.096 15 0.092 23 0.091 23 0.08 10 0.086 23 06/ 26/ 03 0.079 8 0.074 9 0.078 11 0.079 10 0.088 0 0.093 0 0.098 3 0.069 1 0.088 1 07/ 04/ 03 0.09 10 0.07 10 0.068 11 0.085 10 0.053 0 0.062 22 0.072 20 0.059 20 0.064 18 08/ 15/ 03 0.057 10 0.061 10 0.063 10 0.056 9 0.093 13 0.074 14 0.073 16 0.058 23 0.06 17 08/ 26/ 03 0.095 12 0.078 10 0.1 11 0.09 11 0.077 0 0.07 14 0.07 0 0.065 10 0.056 13 No Data Cove Mtn Clingmans Purchase Barnett Knob Spring Hill Freels Bend East Knox Look Rock New Market hour Dir Speed hour Dir Speed hour Dir Speed Dir Speed 05/ 04/ 01 14 332 7.8 290 4.9 17 328 4.3 352 4.6 15 354 4.9 305 4.1 280 5 10 2.6 06/ 18/ 01 20 159 1.4 163 5.7 23 163 103 183 9.1 23 147 18.1 151 15.7 70 12 30 5.2 06/ 19/ 01 11 318 3.7 333 3.4 0 172 9.7 198 8.1 0 145 18.6 149 13.8 220 7 250 4.1 06/ 20/ 01 14 331 4.9 311 3 20 47 7 150 4.4 16 344 2.5 303 3.3 270 7 270 5.5 06/ 21/ 01 12 281 2.5 266 2.9 0 223 2.5 200 4 2 215 4.5 234 5.8 VRB 6 240 7.2 07/ 16/ 01 12 293 3.7 290 2.9 23 225 4.5 245 8.5 23 205 6.4 221 8.2 250 3 260 3.9 06/ 11/ 02 16 307 4.3 258 3.2 0 154 14.2 191 7.7 18 292 3.9 246 7.1 220 8 270 5.1 08/ 05/ 02 16 343 5.2 341 3.2 17 347 7.4 350 10.2 17 334 1.9 349 3.6 0 0 310 2.5 08/ 08/ 02 12 325 5.4 341 4.8 16 357 6.4 38 6.3 14 314 3.7 349 2.8 330 3 10 4.8 08/ 09/ 02 12 250 2.3 261 2 0 176 10.1 210 7.7 13 275 3.5 348 3.3 0 0 300 3.9 08/ 11/ 02 14 325 3.5 341 2.6 20 349 6.2 291 4.5 16 306 2.7 350 4.2 240 8 300 4.5 08/ 13/ 02 0 174 1.7 160 2.8 1 210 4.1 212 2.7 0 204 8.2 200 7.1 0 0 230 3.7 09/ 06/ 02 12 333 4.9 332 3 1 190 7.2 170 5.5 12 352 1.9 39 3.4 VRB 5 20 2.9 09/ 10/ 02 10 334 4.5 326 7 20 293 5.4 284 6.6 20 345 2.5 342 3.8 VRB 5 330 3.3 06/ 24/ 03 16 320 3.9 45 3.2 23 188 7.8 229 4.9 16 2 3.9 31 4.8 50 6 50 50 06/ 25/ 03 15 311 4.3 276 2.6 23 240 3.3 242 4.5 23 222 1.9 222 7.6 320 5 280 3.6 06/ 26/ 03 0 166 2.7 193 2.2 3 255 6.2 250 4.8 0 214 2.7 223 7.5 250 9 240 7.2 07/ 04/ 03 0 155 3.9 182 3.1 20 197 7 218 6.3 22 182 4.3 189 7.9 0 0 270 3.1 08/ 15/ 03 13 286 5.4 358 4.2 16 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 14 335 5.4 359 2.6 80 6 350 3.9 08/ 26/ 03 0 153 2.7 99 2.6 0 N/ A N/ A N/ A N/ A 14 334 4.3 88 3.9 0 0 270 2.9 Look Rock Cove Mountain Clingmans Knoxville 8 hr Average 8 hr Average 8 hr Average Day Average


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23428-23429]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. 2020-0420]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: National
Flight Data Center Web Portal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The collection involves aeronautical information detailing
the physical description and operational status of all components of
the National Airspace System (NAS). The information to be collected
will be used to update government, military, and private aeronautical
database, charts, publications, and flight management systems.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by June 26, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Please send written comments:
    By Electronic Docket: www.regulations.gov (Enter docket number into
search field).
    By mail: John Graybill, FAA, Aeronautical Information Services,
AJV-A35, Station 5150, 1305 East-West Highway, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD
20910.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Graybill by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0754.
    Title: National Flight Data Center Web Portal.
    Form Numbers: AD1-ADCP, AD3-ACC.

    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: 49 U.S.C. 40103, ``Sovereignty and Use of Airspace,''
authorizes and directs the FAA to develop plans and policy for the use
of the navigable airspace. The National Flight Data Center (NFDC) is
the authoritative government source for collecting, validating,
storing, maintaining, and disseminating aeronautical data concerning
the United States and its territories to support real-time aviation
activities. The information collected ensures the safe and efficient
navigation of the national airspace. The information collected is
maintained in the National Airspace System Resources (NASR) database
which serves as the official repository for NAS data and is provided to
government, military, and private producers of aeronautical charts,
publications, and flight management systems. Information will be
collected via digital forms.
    Respondents: Approximately 5,092 representatives of U.S. public
airports. Average of 6,709 responses annually.
    Frequency: Information to be collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,236 hours.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 2020.
John L. Graybill,
Aeronautical Information Specialist, Data Systems Team, Aeronautical
Information Services, AJV-A35.
[FR Doc. 2020-08836 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 24103]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11167]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP15-550-000; CP15-551-001]

Notice of Revised Schedule for Environmental Review of the
Calcasieu Pass Project: Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC;
Transcameron Pipeline, LLC

May 18, 2018.
    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) for Venture Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC and TransCameron
Pipeline, LLC's Calcasieu Pass Project. The first notice of schedule,
issued on November 29, 2017, identified July 3, 2018 as the final EIS
issuance date. Due to staff's recent request for supplemental
engineering information, staff has revised the schedule for issuance of
the final EIS based on an issuance of the draft EIS in June 2018. The
forecasted schedule for both the draft and final EIS is based upon
Global Calcasieu Pass, LLC and TransCameron Pipeline, LLC providing
complete and timely responses to any future data requests. In addition,
the schedule assumes that the cooperating agencies will provide input
on their areas of responsibility on a timely basis.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--October 26, 2018
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--January 24, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
project's progress.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's
    Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website
(www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select ``General Search''
from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and ``Docket
Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP15-550 or CP15-551),
and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary,
the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
at [email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11167 Filed 5-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 10, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 68432]
[DOCID:fr10no05-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP03-323-008]

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated
Rate

November 2, 2005.
    Take notice that on October 31, 2005, Williston Basin Interstate
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing with the
Commission a revised negotiated Rate Schedule FT-1 Service Agreement.
The proposed effective date of the service agreement is November 1,
2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6190 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/04/2008 01:16 PM

To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> cc

Bill Lamason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

Fw: slides for today's 1:00 meeting with OMB

----- Forwarded by Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/04/2008 01:15 PM -----

Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US

04/04/2008 01:15 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Subject

Fw: slides for today's 1:00 meeting with OMB

Zachary Pekar, Ph.D.

Ambient Standards Group

Office of Air and Radiation, USEPA

(919)541-3704

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> ----- Forwarded by Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US on 04/04/2008 01:14 PM -----

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US

04/04/2008 12:57 PM

To

Al McGartland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Allen Basala/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Brian Heninger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Chuck French/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Elizabeth Southerland/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, James Thurman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeneva Craig/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joe Touma/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kevin Cavender/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Marion Hoyer/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Schmidt/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nathalie Simon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Onyemaechi Nweke/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tamara Saltman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tim Benner/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tom Pace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, William Silagi/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Douglas Solomon/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ken Adler/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry Wallace/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lesley Schaaff/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Lillian Bradley/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Rizzo/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rudolph Kapichak/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, Sharon Phillips/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tyler Fox/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

slides for today's 1:00 meeting with OMB

Kathy Kaufman

EPA/OAQPS Mail Code C539-03

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>


[Federal Register: July 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 135)]
[Notices]
[Page 34563]
[DOCID:fr16jy09-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13484-000]

FFP Project 73, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

July 9, 2009.
    On May 22, 2009, FFP Project 73, LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Georgetown Bend Hydrokinetic
Project, to be located on the Mississippi River, in Desha and Chicot
Counties, Arkansas and Bolivar and Washington Counties, Mississippi.
    The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a license application during the
permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder
to perform any land disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands
or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Georgetown Bend Hydrokinetic Project consists of: (1)
2,915 proposed 40 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 116.60 megawatts; (2) a 3.6-mile-long, 69
kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed Georgetown Bend Hydrokinetic Project would have an average
annual generation of 511 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Vice President of
Development, Free Flow Power Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Kim Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13484) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16849 Filed 7-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 12919-12921]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-187]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59598; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change To Establish Fees for NYSE Arca Trades

March 18, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On January 21, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to introduce its NYSE Arca Trades service, a NYSE
Arca-only market data service that allows a vendor to redistribute on a
real-time basis the same last sale information that NYSE Arca reports
to the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') for inclusion in the
CTA's consolidated data stream and certain other related data elements
(``NYSE Arca Last Sale Information''), and to establish fees for that
service. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on February 3, 2009.\3\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59308 (January 28,
2009), 74 FR 5955 (February 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to introduce NYSE Arca Trades, a new service
pursuant to which it will allow vendors, broker-dealers, and others
(``NYSE Arca-Only Vendors'') to make available NYSE Arca Last Sale
Information on a real-time basis. NYSE Arca Last Sale Information would
include last sale information for all securities that are traded on the
Exchange. The Exchange will make NYSE Arca Last Sale Information
available through its new NYSE Arca Trades service at the same time as
it provides last sale information to the processor under the CTA Plan.
In addition to the information that the Exchange provides to CTA, NYSE
Arca Last Sale Information will also include a unique sequence number
that the Exchange assigns to each trade and that allows an investor to
track the context of the trade through such other Exchange market data
products as ArcaBook[supreg].
    The Exchange proposes to charge $750 per month for access to each
of the NYSE Arca Last Sale Information datafeeds that NYSE Arca makes
available. The Exchange proposes to charge each subscriber to an NYSE
Arca-Only Vendor's NYSE Arca Trades service: $5 per month per display
device for the receipt and use of NYSE Arca Last Sale Information
relating to Network A and Network B Eligible Securities (as the CTA
Plan uses those terms); and $5 per month per display device for the
receipt and use of NYSE Arca Last Sale Information relating to
securities listed on Nasdaq.\4\ The access fee applies equally to all
NYSE Arca-Only Vendors that receive the NYSE Arca Trades datafeed and
the device fee applies equally to all subscribers that receive an NYSE
Arca-Only Vendor's NYSE Arca Trades service. The Exchange does not
propose to impose any program classification charges for the use of
NYSE Arca Trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange does not currently perceive a demand for a
nonprofessional subscriber fee for NYSE Arca Trades, but will
monitor customer response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Arca represents that no investors or broker-dealers are
required to subscribe to the product, as they can find the same NYSE
Arca last sale prices either in the Exchange's NYSE Arca Realtime
Reference Prices service,\5\ or integrated with the prices that other
markets make available under the CTA Plan. NYSE Arca anticipates that,
even though NYSE Arca Trades' Last Sale Information provides a less
expensive alternative to the consolidated price information that
investors and broker-dealers receive from CTA, the information that
NYSE Arca contributes to the CTA consolidated datafeed and

the low latency of the CTA datafeed will continue to satisfy the needs
of the vast majority of individual and professional investors. The
Exchange developed NYSE Arca Trades primarily at the request of traders
who are very latency sensitive and anticipates that demand for the
product will derive primarily from investors and broker-dealers who
desire to use NYSE Arca Trades to power certain trading algorithms or
smart order routers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58444 (August 29,
2008), 73 FR 51872 (September 5, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2008-96).
    \6\ The latency difference between accessing last sales through
the NYSE Arca datafeed or through the CTA datafeed can be measured
in tens of milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will require NYSE Arca-Only Vendors to enter into the
form of ``vendor'' agreement into which the CTA Plan requires
recipients of the Network A last sale prices information datafeeds to
enter (the ``Network A Vendor Form''). The Network A Vendor Form will
authorize the NYSE Arca-Only Vendor to provide the NYSE Arca Trades
service to its subscribers and customers. The Network A Participants
drafted the Network A Vendor Form, it is sufficiently generic to
accommodate NYSE Arca Trades, and it has been in use in substantially
the same form since 1990.\7\ The Exchange will require professional and
non-professional subscribers to NYSE Arca Trades to undertake to comply
with the same contract, reporting, payment, and other administrative
requirements as to which the Network A Participants subject them in
respect of Network A last sale information under the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 28407 (September 6,
1990), 55 FR 37276 (September 10, 1990); and 49185 (February 4,
2004), 69 FR 6704 (February 11, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\8\ In
particular, it is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and issuers and other parties using its facilities,
and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest,
and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\11\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. Finally, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Rule 603(a) of Regulation NMS,\12\ adopted under
Section 11A(c)(1) of the Act, which requires an exclusive processor
that distributes information with respect to quotations for or
transactions in an NMS stock to do so on terms that are fair and
reasonable and that are not unreasonably discriminatory.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 242.603(a).
    \13\ NYSE Arca is an exclusive processor of NYSE Arca Trades
under Section 3(a)(22)(B) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(22)(B), which
defines an exclusive processor as, among other things, an exchange
that distributes information with respect to quotations or
transactions on an exclusive basis on its own behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed the proposal using the approach set
forth in the NYSE Arca Order for non-core market data fees.\14\ In the
NYSE Arca Order, the Commission stated that ``when possible, reliance
on competitive forces is the most appropriate and effective means to
assess whether the terms for the distribution of non-core data are
equitable, fair and reasonable, and not unreasonably discriminatory.''
\15\ It noted that the ``existence of significant competition provides
a substantial basis for finding that the terms of an exchange's fee
proposal are equitable, fair, reasonable, and not unreasonably or
unfairly discriminatory.'' \16\ If an exchange ``was subject to
significant competitive forces in setting the terms of a proposal,''
the Commission will approve a proposal unless it determines that
``there is a substantial countervailing basis to find that the terms
nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of the Exchange Act
or the rules thereunder.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-21) (``NYSE
Arca Oder''). In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission describes the
competitive factors that apply to non-core market data products. The
Commission hereby incorporates by reference the data and analysis
from the NYSE Arca Order into this order.
    \15\ Id. at 74771.
    \16\ Id. at 74782.
    \17\ Id. at 74781.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NYSE Arca Order, the standards in Section 6 of the
Act and Rule 603 of Regulation NMS do not differentiate between types
of data and therefore apply to exchange proposals to distribute both
core data and non-core data. Core data is the best-priced quotations
and comprehensive last-sale reports of all markets that the Commission,
pursuant to Rule 603(b), requires a central processor to consolidate
and distribute to the public pursuant to joint-SRO plans.\18\ In
contrast, individual exchanges and other market participants distribute
non-core data voluntarily. The mandatory nature of the core data
disclosure regime leaves little room for competitive forces to
determine products and fees. Non-core data products and their fees are,
by contrast, much more sensitive to competitive forces. The Commission
therefore is able to use competitive forces in its determination of
whether an exchange's proposal to distribute non-core data meets the
standards of Section 6 and Rule 603. Because NYSE Arca's instant
proposal relates to the distribution of non-core data, the Commission
will apply the market-based approach set forth in the NYSE Arca Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 17 CFR 242.603(b). (``Every national securities
exchange on which an NMS stock is traded and national securities
association shall act jointly pursuant to one or more effective
national market system plans to disseminate consolidated
information, including a national best bid and national best offer,
on quotations for and transactions in NMS stocks. Such plan or plans
shall provide for the dissemination of all consolidated information
for an individual NMS stock through a single plan processor.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NYSE Arca Order, the Commission discussed two broad types of
competitive forces that generally apply to exchanges in their
distribution of a non-core data product--the need to attract order flow
and the availability of data alternatives. These forces also applied to
NYSE Arca in setting the terms of this proposal for the NYSE Arca
Trades data product: (i) NYSE Arca's compelling need to attract order
flow from market participants; and (ii) the availability to market
participants of alternatives to purchasing NYSE Arca's data.
    Table 1 below provides a recent snapshot of the state of
competition in the U.S. equity markets in the month of January 2009:
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Source: ArcaVision (available at http://
www.arcavision.com).

                                                     Table 1
                     [Reported Share Volume in U.S.-Listed Equities during January 2009 (%)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Trading venue                             All stocks      NYSE-listed   NASDAQ- listed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASDAQ..........................................................            27.1            20.5            39.9
All Non-Exchange................................................            26.7            26.2            31.0
NYSE Arca.......................................................            17.9            15.7            15.8
NYSE............................................................            14.8            26.2             0.0
BATS............................................................            10.7             9.0            10.8
International Stock Exchange....................................             1.3             1.4             1.4
National Stock Exchange.........................................             0.6             0.7             0.7
Chicago Stock Exchange..........................................             0.4             0.4             0.3
CBOE Stock Exchange.............................................             0.2             0.0             0.1
NYSE Alternext..................................................             0.1             0.0             0.0
NASDAQ OMX BX...................................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The market share percentages in Table 1 strongly indicate that NYSE
Arca must compete vigorously for order flow to maintain its share of
trading volume. The need to attract order flow imposes significant
pressure on NYSE Arca to act reasonably in setting its fees for NYSE
Arca market data, particularly given that the market participants that
must pay such fees often will be the same market participants from whom
NYSE Arca must attract order flow. These market participants
particularly include the large broker-dealer firms that control the
handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary order flow.
Given the portability of order flow from one trading venue to another,
any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high data fees would
risk alienating many of the same customers on whose orders it depends
for competitive survival. Moreover, distributing data widely among
investors, and thereby promoting familiarity with the exchange and its
services, is an important exchange strategy for attracting order
flow.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74784 nn. 218-219 and accompanying
text (noting exchange strategy of offering data for free as a means
to gain visibility in the marketplace).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the need to attract order flow, the availability of
alternatives to NYSE Arca Trades significantly affect the terms on
which NYSE Arca can distribute this market data.\21\ In setting the
fees for its NYSE Arca Trades, the Exchange must consider the extent to
which market participants would choose one or more alternatives instead
of purchasing the Exchange's data.\22\ Of course, the most basic source
of information generally available at an exchange is the complete
record of an exchange's transactions that is provided in the core data
feeds.\23\ In this respect, the core data feeds that include an
exchange's own transaction information are a significant alternative to
the exchange's market data product.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Richard Posner, Economic Analysis of Law Sec.  9.1 (5th
ed. 1998) (discussing the theory of monopolies and pricing). See
also U.S. Dep't of Justice & Fed'l Trade Comm'n, Horizontal Merger
Guidelines Sec.  1.11 (1992), as revised (1997) (explaining the
importance of alternatives to the presence of competition and the
definition of markets and market power). Courts frequently refer to
the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission merger
guidelines to define product markets and evaluate market power. See,
e.g., FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C.
2007); FTC v. Arch Coal, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 2d 109 (D.D.C. 2004). In
considering antitrust issues, courts have recognized the value of
competition in producing lower prices. See, e.g., Leegin Creative
Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007); Atlanta
Richfield Co. v. United States Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (1990);
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574
(1986); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997); Northern Pacific
Raliway Co. v. U.S., 356 U.S. 1 (1958).
    \22\ See NYSE Arca Order at 74783.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The various self-regulatory organizations, the several Trade
Reporting Facilities of FINRA, and ECNs that produce proprietary data,
as well as the core data feed, are all sources of competition in non-
core data products. As Table 1 illustrates, share volume in U.S.-listed
equities is widely dispersed among trading venues, and these venues are
able to offer competitive data products as alternatives to NYSE Arca
Trades. The Commission believes that the availability of those
alternatives, as well as the NYSE Arca's compelling need to attract
order flow, imposed significant competitive pressure on the NYSE Arca
to act equitably, fairly, and reasonably in setting the terms of its
proposal.
    Because NYSE Arca was subject to significant competitive forces in
setting the terms of the proposal, the Commission will approve the
proposal in the absence of a substantial countervailing basis to find
that its terms nevertheless fail to meet an applicable requirement of
the Act or the rules thereunder. An analysis of the proposal does not
provide such a basis. No comments were submitted on this proposal, and
the Commission notes that the proposal does not unreasonably
discriminate among types of users.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\25\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2009-05), be, and
it hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-6465 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P