[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40912-40914]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-56093; File No. SR-ISE-2007-58]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to ISEE Select
Market Data Fees

July 18, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 6, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially 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

    ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt a subscription
fee for an enhanced sentiment market data offering. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Commission's Public Reference
Room, at the Exchange, and at http://www.ise.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change, and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these 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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Pursuant to a filing previously approved by the Commission, the
Exchange currently sells on a subscription basis, to both members and
non-members, ISEE Select\TM\ (``ISEE Select''), an enhanced sentiment
market data offering.\3\ Earlier this year, the Exchange also adopted a
multi-product discount for the ISEE Select offering.\4\ ISEE Select is
based on the ISE Sentiment Index[reg], or ISEE[reg], a calculation that
represents an overall

view of market sentiment. The ISEE[reg] provides an intra-day picture
of how investors view stock prices by assessing customers' option
trading activity. Unlike the traditional put/call ratio which makes no
distinction between customer, market maker or firm transactions, the
ISEE[reg] measures only opening long customer transactions on ISE. ISE
updates the current ISEE[reg] value hourly during market hours and
posts it for free on its Web site.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 53532 (March 21,
2006), 71 FR 15501 (March 28, 2006) (SR-ISE-2005-56) (Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Establish Fees for Enhanced
Sentiment Market Data) and 53756 (May 3, 2006), 71 FR 27526 (May 11,
2006) (SR-ISE-2005-56) (Order Approving Proposed Rule Change to
Establish Fees for Enhanced Sentiment Market Data) (``Initial
Filing'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55288 (February 13,
2007), 72 FR 8219 (February 23, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-09) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fee Discounts for Enhanced Sentiment Market Data Offering)
(``Subsequent Filing'').
    \5\ http://www.iseoptions.com/marketplace/statistics/sentiment_index.asp
.

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

    Pursuant to the Initial Filing, ISEE Select allows subscribers to
identify bullish and bearish investor sentiment for nearly any issue
traded on the Exchange using the same formula that is used for the ISEE
calculation. Where the ISEE[reg] is a single value for the overall
market sentiment, ISEE Select provides specific information to allow an
end user to retrieve a sentiment value for an individual symbol via a
user-defined query tool. In addition to the user-defined query tool,
ISE also offers a pre-defined scanning tool that combs the market for
sentiment levels that meet pre-defined parameters. ISEE Select provides
sentiment values for particular indices, industry sectors or individual
stocks and is calculated three times per hour versus only one time per
hour for the ISEE[reg].
    ISEE Select is currently available to on-line investors on a
subscription basis as follows: (i) 100 user-defined queries for $11.95
per month; (ii) 200 user-defined queries for $14.95 per month; (iii)
unlimited user-defined queries for $19.95 per month; and (iv) unlimited
pre-defined queries for $11.95 per month. ISEE Select is also offered
by third-parties that participate in the Exchange's Marketing Alliance
program.\6\ Customers of participating third-parties are able to take
advantage of a discounted price for the same four subscription levels.
The discounted rates for these subscribers are as follows: (i) 100
user-defined queries for $9.95 per month; (ii) 200 user-defined queries
for $11.95 per month; (iii) unlimited user-defined queries for $15.95
per month; and (iv) unlimited pre-defined queries for $9.95 per month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ When the Commission published the Initial Filing, the
Marketing Alliance program was known as the ISE Broker Marketing
Alliance, and participation in it was limited to broker-dealers.
Following the launch of the ISEE Select market data offering, and in
response to the interest the Exchange received from many non-broker-
dealers wishing to participate in the Marketing Alliance program,
the Exchange subsequently expanded the program by eliminating its
limitation to only broker-dealers. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 54508 (September 26, 2006) 71 FR 58459 (October 3,
2006) (SR-ISE-2006-44) (Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To
Expand the Broker Marketing Alliance To Include Non-Broker-Dealers
with Regard to Enhanced Sentiment Market Data Offering) and 54704
(November 3, 2006), 71 FR 65859 (November 9, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-44)
(Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Expand the Broker Marketing
Alliance To Include Non-Broker-Dealers with Regard To Enhanced
Sentiment Market Data Offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Subsequent Filing, the Exchange also offers to both
member and non-member subscribers the following multi-product
discounted subscription fees: $24.95 per month for customers who
subscribe directly through ISE to both the unlimited pre-defined query
and either 200 user-defined queries or unlimited user-defined queries;
or $19.95 per month for customers of the Marketing Alliance program
partners that subscribe to both the unlimited pre-defined query and
either 200 user-defined queries or unlimited user-defined queries. The
Exchange notes that the multi-product discounts noted above are a
reduction of the actual subscription fees for the products to which
they apply. If not for the multi-product discount, for on-line
subscribers, these fees would be (i) $26.90 per month for subscribers
to both unlimited pre-defined queries and 200 user-defined queries, or
(ii) $31.90 per month for subscribers to both unlimited pre-defined
queries and unlimited user-defined queries. For customers of the
Marketing Alliance program partners, if not for the multi-product
discount, these fees would be (i) $21.90 per month for subscribers to
both unlimited pre-defined queries and 200 user-defined queries, or
(ii) $25.90 per month for subscribers to both unlimited pre-defined
queries and unlimited user-defined queries.
    The Exchange now proposes to offer to both member and non-member
subscribers a data feed that will provide a bulk delivery of ISEE
Select values. The existing ISEE Select browser application allows a
subscriber to access ISEE Select values for up to five securities
simultaneously. The current proposal, on the other hand, will allow
subscribers to access numerous ISEE Select values simultaneously. The
actual potential number of ISEE Select values accessible by this
proposed data feed offering can range from one to more than 1,700.
    The ISEE Select data feed will have a flat rate subscription fee
based on a fixed number of end users that each subscriber allows to
view the data, as follows: $0.10 per end user, per month, for a minimum
of 10,000 end users; $0.10 for each additional end user, per month, up
to 74,999 end users, in increments of 5,000 end users; $0.084 per end
user, per month, for redistribution from 75,000 to 199,999 end users,
in increments of 5,000 end users; and $0.0825 per end user, per month,
for redistribution to 200,000 or more end users, in minimum increments
of 5,000 end users. An example of the monthly subscription fee for a
subscriber with 100,000 end users is as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Monthly fee   Monthly
         Number of users per  increment            per user    sub-total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10,000.........................................         $.10      $1,000
10,001-74,999..................................          .10       6,500
75,000-100,000.................................          .084      2,100
                                                ------------------------
  Monthly Total................................  ............      9,600
Average Fee per User...........................  ............       .096
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ that an exchange have
an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among its members and other persons using its facilities. In
particular, the proposed rule filing will provide members and non-
members with the ability to subscribe to a data feed of ISEE Select
values at a flat rate subscription basis for redistribution to their
customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This 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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:

    A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2007-58 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-58. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-58 and should be
submitted on or before August 15, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14314 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 32768]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12119]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4269-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001]

Texas; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas (FEMA-4269-DR), dated April 25, 2016, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of
April 25, 2016.

    Austin, Colorado, Waller, and Wharton Counties for Individual
Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-12119 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 120 (Friday, June 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41023-41024]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-1212]

Changes to Surveillance and Broadcast Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notification of changes to surveillance services.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces termination of the Mode-S Traffic
Information Service (TIS) at FAA terminal Mode-S radar sites. The FAA
is replacing legacy terminal Mode-S radars via the Mode-S Beacon
Replacement System (MSBRS) program, or may remove legacy terminal Mode-
S radars as part of other ongoing activities. As each legacy terminal
Mode-S Radar is replaced or removed, the FAA will no longer provide
Mode-S TIS to capable transponders from that location. This change does
not affect existing Traffic Information Service--Broadcast (TIS-B),
Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Rebroadcast (ADS-R), or Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Same Link Rebroadcast (ADS-SLR) services
currently provided to aircraft with a properly functioning Automatic
Dependent Surveillance--Broadcast (ADS-B) system.

DATES: Effective June 23, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this document, contact: Michael Freie, Technical Advisor, Surveillance
Services, AJM-4, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation
Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20597;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    In 2018, the FAA performed an assessment of the safety impacts on
general aviation owners and operators (from here on referred to as
``the GA Community'') from the termination of Mode-S Traffic
Information Service (TIS). The purpose of this work was to communicate
information on the removal of Mode-S TIS from the National Airspace
System (NAS) through user outreach and engaging with non-governmental
organizations (e.g., Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), Aircraft
Owner and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association
(EAA), and General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)). Taking
into consideration the results of the FAA study and the benefits from
the ADS-B In traffic services available in the NAS, the FAA determined
that removal of Mode-S TIS had little to no significant adverse safety
impact on the GA Community. Therefore, beginning in 2024, Mode-S TIS
will terminate at each radar location as current Mode-S radars are
replaced by the Mode-S Beacon Replacement System (MSBRS) program, or as
legacy terminal Mode-S radars are removed as part of other ongoing
activities. The GA Community should no longer rely on reception of
Mode-S TIS information from FAA capable radars.

I. Background

    In 2000, FAA implemented Mode-S Traffic Information System (TIS)
via Mode-S radar data-link functionality. Mode-S TIS has also been
referred to informally as TIS-A by some in industry. Mode-S TIS was
implemented by FAA in response to an NTSB recommendation suggesting
improvement of situational awareness information for the general
aviation (GA) community not equipped with a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system (TCAS). Reception of Mode-S TIS information was not a
functionality that was required for Mode-S transponders. To this day, a
very limited set of transponders are known to be capable of receiving
and processing Mode-S TIS information from FAA terminal radars.
    In May 2010, the FAA published 14 CFR 91.225 and 91.227, requiring
aircraft to be equipped with Automatic Dependent Surveillance--
Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment by 1 January 2020 in order to operate
in certain U.S. airspace. ADS-B was identified as the backbone for the
future of the FAA's Next Generation (NextGen) programs. From 2010
through 2020, the FAA funded deployment of approximately 700 ADS-B
radio stations across the U.S. to provide improved surveillance
coverage across the NAS. Along with improving surveillance coverage,
the FAA implemented functionality into ADS-B radio stations geared at
providing appropriately equipped GA aircraft with enhanced situational
awareness through both Traffic Information Services--Broadcast (TIS-B)
and Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Rebroadcast (ADS-R).\1\ In 2016,
FAA funded the addition of Automatic Dependent Surveillance--Same Link
Rebroadcast (ADS-SLR) service at the busiest U.S. airports with a
surface surveillance system.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ More information on TIS-B and ADS-R can be found at the
FAA's NEXTGEN ADS-B website: https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb.
    \2\ FAA has two surface surveillance systems: ASSC (Airport
Surface Surveillance Capability) and ASDE-X (Airport Surface
Detection Equipment, Model X). See https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/atc/assc and https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/technology/asde-x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the decades following the initial Mode-S TIS deployment, the FAA
implemented improved systems for provisioning information on proximate
aircraft to GA pilots through the use of TIS-B, ADS-R, and ADS-SLR
services. These new services expand beyond the

currently provided Mode-S TIS. With the ADS-B mandate in effect since
January 2020, and low-cost avionics systems for receiving and
displaying ADS-B, ADS-R, ADS-SLR, and TIS-B information are readily
available, the GA community is able to obtain a heightened situational
awareness of the traffic around them. This is especially true when
flying around the terminal areas where significant ADS-B coverage is
available today.
    As of March 6, 2023, approximately 133,486 aircraft have been
identified as receiving ADS-B In information on one or both of the
mandated ADS-B frequencies. The vast majority of these are general
aviation aircraft due to the number of portable ADS-B In devices or
integrated ADS-B In/Out systems available to this market.

Mode-S Radar Beacon Replacement System

    Many FAA Mode-S terminal radars are approaching the end of their
useful lifecycle. Additionally, the FAA is facing an increased
maintenance cost from the inability to purchase parts, due to parts
obsolescence or part shortages, necessary to ensure continued
operational availability. To mitigate this, the FAA has initiated a
radar modernization effort called the Mode-S Beacon Replacement System
(MSBRS) program. Under this program, the FAA intends to replace at
least forty-six (46) aging Mode-S terminal radars starting in 2024.
Starting in 2024 as the new MSBRS radars replace the existing terminal
radars, the existing Mode-S TIS functionality will disappear at the
location of each replaced terminal radar.
    Replacement of the existing terminal radars capable of providing
Mode-S TIS under the MSBRS Program will provide an improvement in air
traffic control (ATC) capabilities, which will benefit civil and
military aviation, including general aviation. Installation of the new
state-of-the-art MSBRS radars will improve system operational
reliability and reduce system down time.
    During this timeframe, the FAA will continue to provide Mode-S TIS
through the existing terminal radars until the existing radar is
replaced with a new MSBRS radar. This document is intended to provide
time for GA aircraft owners and operators who have not yet equipped
with an ADS-B receiver to acquire and install, if appropriate, an ADS-B
In capable system.

Other FAA Surveillance System Improvement Activities

    Independent of the MSBRS program, FAA is also engaged in multiple
activities aimed at improving existing surveillance systems. These
activities are aimed at reducing FAA operating costs and/or reducing
congestion on surveillance system RF frequencies. As these activities
proceed, FAA may remove one or more Mode-S terminal radars from
operation, which would eliminate Mode-S TIS at that location.

II. Industry Discussion on Mode-S TIS Removal

    Using surveys and discussions with industry organizations, the FAA
was able to obtain the necessary data required to understand the
potential safety impacts from removing Mode-S TIS functionality from
the existing terminal radars. FAA conducted surveys, such as the
General Aviation/Part 135 Air Taxi Activity Survey, to produce a set of
comprehensive data on part 91 and part 135 aircraft and their
operations. The FAA reviewed data from survey reports for 2010, 2014,
2016, 2018, and 2019, and discussed these reports with industry
association experts. The data from these reports were utilized to study
the relevant surveillance equipage for all types of aircraft: Fixed
Wing Piston, Fixed Wing turboprop single and multi-engine, turbojet,
and rotorcraft.
    Since 2018, the FAA has conducted industry briefings and
discussions with major avionics manufacturing companies on the MSBRS
program and the associated planned removal of Mode-S TIS from terminal
radars. These discussions assisted in gathering pertinent information
on equipage and gaining insight into potential concerns. Taking into
consideration this information and the survey results, as well as the
ADS-B In traffic services available to the cockpit via low-cost
portable or integrated devices, the FAA determined that removal of
Mode-S TIS had little to no significant adverse safety impacts on the
GA Community.

III. Summary

    Based on industry engagement, FAA has determined that the removal
of Mode-S TIS functionality will have little to no safety impact on the
GA community.
    Removal of legacy terminal Mode-S radars may occur as part of other
ongoing FAA activities to divest radars or which are being replaced
with other modern cooperative surveillance systems. These activities
are being pursued to lower FAA operating costs and/or reduce congestion
on surveillance system RF frequencies.
    Aircraft operating within ADS-B mandated airspace, specified under
14 CFR 91.225, have transitioned their avionics equipment to be
compliant with the performance requirements of the regulation. If the
ADS-B Out equipment is performing and configured properly, aircraft
equipped with ADS-B In are capable of receiving ADS-R, ADS-SLR, and
TIS-B services from the FAA ADS-B ground stations across the NAS. These
low-cost ADS-B In avionics systems are widely available, and provide
the GA community with a heightened situational awareness of the traffic
around them which was not previously available using solely Mode-S TIS
information. These services expand coverage and more than replace the
information currently provided by Mode-S TIS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 7, 2023.
Daniel S. Hicok,
Deputy Vice President (A), Program Management Organization, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-12607 Filed 6-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62563-62564]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19568]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15317-000]

Littoral Power Systems, Inc.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On June 28, 2023, Littoral Power Systems, Inc. filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Upper Cook Inlet
Tidal Energy Project to be located in Cook Inlet, Alaska approximately
17 miles north-northwest of Kenai, Alaska and 9.5 miles northwest of
Nikiski, Alaska. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit 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 project would consist of axial hydrokinetic turbines installed
underwater at or proximate to one or more of four existing
decommissioned natural gas drilling platforms (Baker, Shell-A, Shell-C,
and Dillon) located within the Upper Cook Inlet. The drilling
platforms, which are owned and operated by Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, would
be the prime anchoring structures for the hydrokinetic equipment that
would convert the energy of Cook Inlet's tidal currents into electrical
power. The electrical energy would be transmitted via a new 25kV
submarine cable to an existing onshore substation (the Bernice Lake
substation owned by the Homer Electric Association, Inc.) located about
1.5 miles east-northeast of the East Foreland Lighthouse on the Kenai
Peninsula. The length of the subsea cable from the drilling platforms
to land would be between 3.5 and 5 miles, depending on the selected
route, and the length of the land transmission line to the substation
would be between 2 and 3 miles. Each hydrokinetic turbine would have a
generating capacity of 1 megawatt (MW). The project would produce from
5,000 to 6,000 megawatt-hours (MWh) per year initially.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. David Duquette, CEO, Littoral Power Systems,
Inc., 5 Dover Street, Suite 102, New Bedford, MA 02740; Phone: (508)
436-4100.
    FERC Contact: David Froehlich; email; [email protected];
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members, and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with filings such as interventions,
comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to
contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]. Comments, motions to
intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or
notices of intent to file competing applications should be submitted
within 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications
and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters without prior registration using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please get in touch with FERC Online Support
at [email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll-free), or (202)
502-8659 (TTY). Instead of electronic filing, you may submit a paper
copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-15310-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can

be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's
website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
docket number (P-15317) in the docket number field to access a
document. For assistance, do not hesitate to get in touch with FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: September 5, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19568 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Date:	 September 29, 2011

Subject: 	Technical Approach for Wool Fiberglass MACT Floor Calculations

	EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-10

	RTI Project No. 0210426.004.010

From: 		Cindy Hancy

		Dave Reeves

To: 		Susan Fairchild, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG

Introduction

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for the control of the
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emitted from both new and existing major
sources in a source category.  These standards must reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in the HAP emissions that is achievable.  The
minimum level of control is referred to as the “Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) floor.”  The method for determining the MACT
floor for a NESHAP is defined for both new and existing sources in CAA
section 112(d)(3).  For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the
best-controlled similar source.  For existing sources, the MACT floor
cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved
by the best-performing 12% of existing sources for source categories
with 30 or more sources, or the best-performing five sources for source
categories with fewer than 30 sources.

The purpose of this memorandum is to present the data, the methodology,
and the results of the MACT floor analysis for the Wool Fiberglass
Production NESHAP source category. This analysis is part of EPA's
obligation under CAA section 112(f)(2) and 112(d)(6) to conduct a
residual risk and technology review.  The MACT floor analysis is also
being performed in response to a petition for rulemaking by the Natural
Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club that states EPA failed to set
emission limits for HAPs (phenol and methanol) emitted by wool
fiberglass facilities and challenges some HAP surrogacies used in the
current wool fiberglass NESHAP. This MACT floor analysis uses data
collected from a nationwide voluntary Information Collection Request
(ICR) of wool fiberglass manufacturers conducted by EPA in 2010.  Data
on process operations, emission controls, and air emissions data
reported by respondents to the ICR were compiled into a Microsoft Access
data base that serves as the data set used for this MACT floor analysis
(referred to in this memorandum as the “ICR data set”).

Background Information

The current Wool Fiberglass Production NESHAP was promulgated on June
14, 1999 and applies to each of the following existing and newly
constructed sources located at a wool fiberglass manufacturing facility:
All glass-melting furnaces, rotary spin (RS) manufacturing lines that
produce bonded building insulation, and flame attenuation (FA)
manufacturing lines producing bonded pipe insulation. The rule also
applies to new FA manufacturing lines producing bonded heavy-density
products. RS and FA manufacturing lines that produce nonbonded products
are not currently subject to the standards.  The 1999 Wool Fiberglass
Production NESHAP sets particulate matter (PM) emission limits for new
and existing furnaces and sets formaldehyde limits for new and existing
RS and FA manufacturing lines.  The current NESHAP also uses the
surrogate approach, where PM serves as a surrogate for HAP metals and
formaldehyde serves as a surrogate for organic HAPs.

The wool fiberglass production source category currently consists of 29
facilities in the US; combined, these 29 facilities operate
approximately 79 furnaces and listed over 100 process lines. This
furnace count does not include pot & marble furnaces and not all RS and
FA manufacturing lines produce a bonded product.  By definition in the
current rule Bonded refers to wool fiberglass to which a
phenol-formaldehyde binder has been applied. The use of these types of
binders results in formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol emissions from
sources at bonded RS and FA lines which generally consist of forming,
curing, and collection operations. The stack configurations of RS and FA
bonded lines vary at facilities, as it is common industry practice to
vent more than one process unit to common ductwork/controls. The
proposed amendments to the rule, as a result of this review, will
include the addition of methanol and phenol limits for RS and FA bonded
lines, as well as, a revision to formaldehyde limits in order to reflect
the emission levels achieved by the current best performing sources.

The specific chemicals, compounds, or groups of compounds designated as
HAP are listed in CAA section 112(b). From this list, the following
additional HAPs were identified as being emitted from furnaces and will
be regulated for new and existing sources in the proposed rule: hydrogen
fluoride (HF) and hydrogen chloride (HCl).  The current PM limit is also
being revised and a new chromium limit is being proposed as a result of
the technology review on the wool fiberglass industry. Because PM and
Chromium limits will be proposed as a technology review finding, the
details of these limits are discussed in the Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for Wool Fiberglass NESHAP memorandum.

MACT Floor Analysis - Subcategories

Under CAA section 112(d)(1), EPA has the discretion to “...distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a category or
subcategory in establishing...” standards.  When separate
subcategories are established, a MACT floor is determined separately for
each subcategory.  To determine whether the wool fiberglass production
facilities warrant subcategorization for the MACT floor analysis, EPA
reviewed unit and process designs, operating information, and air
emissions data compiled in the ICR data set and other information
collected by the Agency for development of the NESHAP for this source
category.  Based on this review, EPA concluded that there are no
significant design and operational differences at wool fiberglass
facilities that would warrant proposing subcategorization. However, EPA
did find large differences in chrome contents of refractory bricks used
in some glass melting furnaces.

MACT Floor Analysis Methodology

Existing Sources

A MACT floor analysis was completed for each proposed regulated
pollutant as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 – Summary of Proposed Limits

	Existing Sources	New Sources

Furnaces

HF	EPA is proposing new limit (No current limit exists)	EPA is proposing
new limit (No current limit exists)

HCl	EPA is proposing new limit (No current limit exists)	EPA is
proposing new limit (No current limit exists)

RS Bonded lines

Formaldehyde	Revising existing limit	Revising existing limit

Phenol	EPA is proposing new limit (No current limit exists)	EPA is
proposing new limit (No current limit exists)

Methanol	EPA is proposing new limit (No current limit exists)	EPA is
proposing new limit (No current limit exists)

FA Bonded Lines

Formaldehyde	Revising existing limit	Revising existing limit

Phenol	EPA is proposing new limit (No current limit exists)	EPA is
proposing new limit (No current limit exists)

Methanol	EPA is proposing new limit (No current limit exists)	EPA is
proposing new limit (No current limit exists)

The first step in the MACT floor analysis for each regulated source and
HAP was to rank each unit (for which emissions data was provided) by
emission level (lowest to highest) for each pollutant.  From this
ranking, a MACT floor pool of sources was identified for determining the
minimum control level allowed for the MACT floor, consistent with the
criteria defined for new and existing sources by CAA section 112(d)(3).
For the new source MACT floors, the best-controlled source was
identified for which there were individual source test run data in the
ICR data set.  For the existing source MACT floors, selection of the
MACT floor pool size (i.e., number of emission units to be included in
the determination of the average emission limitation value) was
determined on an individual unit category basis as described below.

Furnaces.   This category includes more than 30 sources and therefore
the top 12% of furnaces where used to calculate the UPL.  Since there
are 80 furnaces industry wide, the top 10 best performing furnaces for
which we had data for were used in calculating the MACT floor for HF and
 HCl.  At some facilities, multiple furnaces are routed to one stack and
emission testing was performed at the combined stack. In these cases,
the lb/ton emission rate from the test report was applied to all the
sources routed to the stack.

Bonded RS Manufacturing Lines.  Industry wide, this category includes
more than 30 sources and therefore the top 12% of furnaces where used to
calculate the UPL. There are approximately __ bonded RS manufacturing
lines, therefore, the top 7 best performing furnaces for which emission
test data was provided were used in calculating the MACT floor for
formaldehyde, phenol, and methanol.

Bonded FA Manufacturing Lines.  This category includes less than 30
sources and emission test data was submitted for three FA lines.
Therefore, all of these 3 sources were used to calculate formaldehyde,
phenol, and methanol limits for existing sources. For new sources, the
best performing source was used to calculate the MACT floor for each
pollutant.

The next step in the MACT floor analysis was to account for data
variability in the calculations of the applicable MACT floor limits for
the subcategories using the data’s 99% upper prediction limit (UPL).
Specifically, the MACT floor limit was determined as the UPL calculated
with the Student’s t-test using the “TINV” function in Microsoft
Excel software.  The UPL approach has also been used in other EPA
rulemakings (e.g., NESHAP for Portland Cement, NSPS for
Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators, NESHAP for Industrial,
Commercial, Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, and NESHAP for
Electric Generating Units) to account for variability in emissions data
for a specified level of confidence.  The level of confidence represents
the level of protection afforded to facilities whose emissions are in
line with the best performers.  For example, a 99% level of confidence
means that a facility whose emissions are consistent with the best
performers has one chance in 100 of exceeding the floor limit.  A
prediction interval for a single future observation (or an average of
several test observations) is an interval that will, with a specified
degree of confidence, contain the next (or the average of some other
pre-specified number) of randomly selected observation(s) from a
population.  In other words, the upper prediction limit estimates what
the upper bound of future values will be, based upon present or past
background samples taken.  The UPL consequently represents the value at
which we can expect the mean of future observations for the HAP
emissions to fall within a specified level of confidence, based upon the
results of an independent sample from the same population.  This method
accounts for the point-to-point variability in the data.

The form of the UPL equation differs somewhat depending upon the number
of data points and data distribution to which it is applied. Attachment
A includes a flow diagram that summarizes the UPL approaches used. To
this end, the data sets were evaluated for each HAP to ascertain whether
the data were normally distributed, or fit another type of distribution
(e.g., log normal distribution).  According to the Central Limit Theorem
(Durrett, 1996), when a data set includes 15 or more sources, the UPL is
based on the assumption that the data fit a normal distribution.  The
Central Limit Theorem states that regardless of the shape of the
original distribution, if the distribution has a finite mean (μ) and
variance (σ²), the sampling distribution of the mean approaches a
normal distribution with a mean of (μ) and a variance of σ²/N as N,
the sample size, increases (Durrett, 1996).

The wool fiberglass data sets used to calculate MACT floors varied for
each pollutant. When the sample size is smaller than 15 and the
distribution of the data is unknown, the Central Limit Theorem cannot be
used to support the normality assumption.  Statistical test of the
kurtosis, skewness, and goodness of fit test are then used to evaluate
the normality assumption.  The skewness statistic (S) characterizes the
degree of asymmetry of a given data distribution.  Normally distributed
data have an S value of 0.  An S value that is greater (less) than 0
indicates that the data are asymmetrically distributed with a right
(left) tail extending towards positive (negative) values.  The standard
error of the skewness statistic (SES) was also used in determining the
normality of the data distribution.  The kurtosis statistic (K)
characterizes the degree of peakedness or flatness of a given data
distribution in comparison to a normal distribution.  Normally
distributed data have a K value of 0.  A K value that is greater (less)
than 0 indicates a relatively peaked (flat) distribution.  The standard
error of the kurtosis statistic (SEK) was also used in determining the
normality of the data distribution.

For each data set to which the UPL was applied (i.e., the separate data
sets for each HAP applicable to a source), the S and K values were
calculated using the reported test values.  If both kurtosis and
skewness tests indicate the data is normally distributed, the UPL was
calculated using the UPL pooled variance Equation 1.

   		Equation 1

where:

  	=  the average (mean) of the best performing existing sources;

	t(p,df) 	=  the t statistic for a confidence level p, and df degrees of
freedom;

	s2	=  the pooled variance;

	n	=  the total number of test runs (all sources) used in the analysis;
and

	m	=  the number of (future) compliance test runs [for run-by-run data,
m=3].

Degrees of freedom calculated by:

 							    Equation 1a

Mean calculated by:

               Equation 1b

Pooled variance calculated by:

                                                      		    Equation 1c

If the kurtosis or skewness tests indicate the data was not normally
distributed, the data were log-transformed. Once the logs of all the
test runs were calculated, new kurtosis and skewness tests were
performed on the log-transformed data. If both kurtosis and skewness
tests indicated the log-transformed data were normally distributed, the
UPL can be calculated using the Equation 2.

                     Equation 2

where:

	μ	=  the average of the best performing existing sources;

  	=  the z statistic for a lognormal distribution at 99 percent;

 	=  the variance;

	n	=  the total number of test runs (all sources) used in the analysis;
and

	m	=  the number of (future) compliance test runs [for run-by-run data
m=3].

Mean is calculated by:

                        Equation 2a

Variance is calculated by:

           Equation 2b

If the raw data and the log-transformed data were not normally
distributed and n ≥13, the UPL was calculated using the UPL pooled
variance with skewness adjustment in Equation 3.  Note this adjustment
cannot be used if the number of individual runs is less than 13.

    Equation 3

where:

  	=  the average of the best performing existing sources;

	t(p,df) 	=  the t statistic for a confidence level p, and df degrees of
freedom;

	s2	=  the pooled variance;

	n	=  the total number of test runs (all sources) used in the analysis;

	m	=  the number of (future) compliance test runs [for run-by-run data
m=3]; and

	Skew	=  the skewness of the test runs used in the analysis.

If the raw data and the log-transformed data were not normally
distributed and n was less than 13 the UPL was calculated using the UPL
pooled variance in Equation 1, but instead of using the Excel TINV
formula to find the t statistic t(p,df), a trial and error method was
used to find the t static that gives a 99 percent confidence level by
correcting the probability values  (p) using Equation 4

λ3(t) – Kurtosis x Pλ4(t) + λ32xP λ3/2(t)       Equation 4

Adjustment for Below Detection Level Emissions Data

!

"

#

$

 h

h

ᄀ$

%

)

D

O

ˆ

‹

Œ

¢

¤

!

.

5

?

@

[

\

p

×

æ

ç

ò

h

\

hç

h

hã

hã

hã

hã

h

 hã

hã

hç

hã

hã

hã

- h¢

- h¢

h¢

h¢

kd

h|

 h|

h|

h|

h|

h|

h|

h|

h|

h|

h|

hd

hd

Æ

ⴀs were not performed.

MACT Floor Analysis Results

The MACT floors for new and existing sources are summarized in Table 2.
When calculated MACT floors for new sources are less stringent than the
MACT floor calculated for existing sources, the existing MACT floor was
used for both new and existing sources.

	Mean of Sources

Used to Calculate UPL (lb/ton)	99% UPL Calculated for Existing Sources
(lb/ton)	99% UPL Calculated for New Sources (lb/ton)

Furnaces

Hydrogen Fluoride	0.00079	0.0020	0.00078

Hydrogen Chloride	0.00071	0.0015	0.00078

RS Lines

Formaldehyde	0.090	0.17	0.020

Phenol	0.057	0.19	0.0011

Methanol	0.16	0.48	0.00067

FA Lines

Formaldehyde	3.53	5.55	3.32

Phenol	0.51	1.36	0.46

Methanol	0.30	0.50	0.50

Attachment A

DRAFT 3-1-11

  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  8


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43202-43205]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19451]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0130; FRL-9967-68-Region 9]

Revisions to California State Implementation Plan; Bay Area Air
Quality Management District; Emission Reduction Credit Banking

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing action
on a revision to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD
or District) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
We are proposing a conditional approval of one rule. This revision
consists of updates to provisions governing the issuance and banking of
Emission Reduction Credits for use in the review and permitting of
major sources and major modifications under part D of title I of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan
to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2017-0130 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9, (415)
972-3534<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. What is the existing BAAQMD rule governing banking of
Emission Reduction Credits in the California SIP?
    C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
III. Proposed Action and Public Comment
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    On April 22, 2013, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted an amended rule, BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Rule 2-4), for
approval as a revision to the BAAQMD portion of the California SIP
under the CAA. Regulation 2 contains the District's air quality
permitting programs. Rule 2-4 contains requirements applicable to the
banking of Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) for use in the District's
air quality permitting programs.
    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by BAAQMD and submitted to the EPA by CARB, which
is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Adopted/
          Regulation & rule number                        Rule title                  amended        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Rule 2-4)............  Permits, Emissions Banking.........        12/19/12         4/22/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2013, Regulation 2, Rule 4 was deemed to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review. The submittal includes evidence of public
notice and adoption of the amended rule. While we can only take action
on the most recently submitted version of each regulation (which
supersedes earlier submitted versions), we have reviewed materials
provided with previous submittals.

B. What is the existing BAAQMD rule governing banking of Emission
Reduction Credits in the California SIP?

    The existing SIP-approved banking rule in the Bay Area consists of
the rule identified in Table 2. This rule includes requirements for the
generation and use of ERCs in nonattainment areas.
    Consistent with the District's stated intent to have the submitted
banking rule replace the existing SIP-approved banking rule in its
entirety, EPA's conditional approval of the regulation identified in
Table 1 would have the effect of entirely superseding our prior
approval of the same rule in the current SIP-approved program.

                                           Table 2--Existing SIP Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               BAAQMD       EPA approval
      Regulation & rule No.              Rule title         adoption date       date            FR citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-4.............................  Permits, Emissions            6/15/1994       1/26/1999  64 FR 3850.
                                   Banking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of this proposed rule?

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to present our evaluation
under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the amended banking rule
submitted by CARB on April 22, 2013, as identified in Table 1. We
provide our reasoning in general terms later in this preamble and
provide a more detailed analysis in our Technical Support Document
(TSD), which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

II. EPA's Evaluation

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    In general, banking rules allow a permitting authority to evaluate
whether certain emission reductions meet the offset integrity criteria
found in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) and CAA section 173(c)(1) at
the time of ERC issuance, and, if found to meet these criteria, to
certify that finding by issuing an ERC Certificate. This process
provides the Certificate-holder with a greater degree of certainty as
to the validity of their ERCs for future use as offsets. Since the
intent of a banking program is to pre-review an emission reduction to
determine whether it will meet the offset integrity criteria, we
considered these criteria in our evaluation. In addition, we used EPA's
Emissions Trading Policy Statement (ETPS),\1\ which provides guidance
on emissions trading, including the banking of ERCs for future use. EPA
also evaluated the rules for compliance with the CAA requirements for
SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l), and the additional
requirements laid out in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 51 FR 43814, December 4, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a
more detailed evaluation and discussion of the approval criteria.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    With respect to procedural requirements, CAA sections 110(a)(2) and
110(l) require that revisions to a SIP be adopted by the State after
reasonable notice and public hearing. Based on our review of the public
process documentation included in the April 22, 2013 submittal, we find
that the BAAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice, and
an opportunity for comment and a public hearing prior to adoption and
submittal of these rules to EPA.
    With respect to substantive requirements, we have evaluated Rule 2-
4 to ensure it does not conflict with the requirements applicable to
offsets in accordance with the CAA and regulatory requirements that
apply to nonattainment NSR permit programs under part D of title I of
the Act. For the most part, the submitted banking rule satisfies the
applicable requirements and will strengthen the SIP by updating the
rule and adding requirements to address fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). However, the submitted banking rule also contains
three deficiencies that prevent full approval. Further in this
preamble, we discuss generally our evaluation of BAAQMD's submitted
rule and describe the identified deficiencies. Our TSD contains a more
detailed evaluation and recommendations for program improvements.
    First, Rule 2-4 is deficient because, while it defines the term
ERCs as emission reductions ``that are in excess of the reductions
required by applicable regulatory requirements, and that are real,
permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable,'' it does not contain any
enforceable provisions requiring the Air Pollution Control Officer to
determine that the emission reductions under review meet the offset
integrity criteria prior to issuing an ERC Certificate.
    Second, Rule 2-4 is deficient because it incorporates the emission
reduction calculation procedures found in Rule 2-2 subsection 605.2. On
August 1, 2016, EPA finalized a limited approval and limited
disapproval of BAAQMD's Rule 2-2--New Source Review \2\ because it
contained deficiencies regarding the calculation of emission
reductions. Specifically, EPA disapproved Rule 2-2 subsection 605.2
because it allows existing ``fully-offset'' sources to generate ERCs
based on the difference between the post-modification potential to emit
(PTE) and the pre-modification PTE. This may result in crediting
emission reductions that are not ``actual'' reductions, as required by
the Act. See 42 U.S.C. 7503(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR 50339, August 1, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Rule 2-4 is deficient because Section 2-4-302.3 allows ERC
Certificates to be issued that do not

adequately ensure the permanency of an emission reduction due to a
facility closure.
    With respect to the substantive requirements of CAA section 110(l),
we have determined that our approval of Rule 2-4, as described in more
detail in our TSD, represents a strengthening of the rule as compared
to the District's current SIP-approved banking rule that we approved on
January 26, 1999 (64 FR 3850), and that our conditional approval of the
current SIP submittal would not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and Reasonable Further Progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Act.

III. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    Because the rule deficiencies described previously are
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, EPA cannot grant full approval
of this rule under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. However, in a letter
dated August 28, 2017, the District committed to adopt and submit
specific enforceable measures to address these deficiencies. The
District committed to submit these revisions to CARB by October 1,
2018. In addition, in a letter dated August 29, 2017, CARB committed to
submit the adopted rule revisions to EPA no later than November 1,
2018. Accordingly, pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a conditional approval of the submitted rule. We are
proposing to conditionally approve the submitted rule based on our
determination that separate from the deficiencies listed previously,
the rule: Ensures that issued ERCs will meet the criteria laid out in
40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) at the time of ERC issuance; satisfies
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i); satisfies the applicable
requirements found in the ETPS; and satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(ii), which requires pre-base year shutdown
credits to be explicitly added back in to the most recent applicable
air quality plans. Moreover, we conclude that if the District submits
the changes it has committed to submit, these deficiencies will be
cured.
    In support of this proposed action, we have concluded that our
conditional approval of the submitted rule would comply with section
110(l) of the Act because the amended rule, as a whole, would not
interfere with continued attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards in the Bay Area. The intended effect of our proposed
conditional approval action is to update the applicable SIP with
current BAAQMD rules and provide BAAQMD the opportunity to correct the
identified deficiencies, as discussed in their commitment letter dated
August 28, 2017. If we finalize this action as proposed, our action
would be codified through revisions to 40 CFR 52.220 (Identification of
plan) and 40 CFR 52.232 (Part D conditional approval).
    If the State meets its commitment to submit the required measures
by November 1, 2018, the revisions to Rule 2-4 will remain a part of
the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new
SIP revisions. However, if the District fails to submit these revisions
within the required timeframe, the conditional approval will
automatically become a disapproval, and EPA will issue a finding of
disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval.
    There are no sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
implications should the conditional approval become a disapproval.
Sanctions would not be imposed under CAA section 179(b) because the
submittal of Rule 2-4 is discretionary (i.e., not required to be
included in the SIP). See ETPS, 51 FR 43,813 at 43,825 (``[S]tates are
by no means required to adopt banking procedures, but . . . banks may
help states and communities realize important planning and
environmental benefits.''). A FIP would not be imposed under CAA
section 110(c)(1) because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency
in the SIP that such a FIP must correct. Specifically: (1) The
deficiencies identified herein do not impact or undermine the
requirement that offsets satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 51.165,
including the requirement that offsets must satisfy the offset
integrity criteria enumerated in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(ii)(C)(1)(i) at
the time of use; and (2) Rule 2-4 is not a required CAA submittal
because states and air districts have the discretion, but are not
required, to adopt banking rules.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed conditional
approval of Rule 2-4 for the next 30 days.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 4 (Permits, Emissions Banking),
which is discussed in section I.A. of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, this document generally available
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at
the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble
for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any
Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has

jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate Matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 31, 2017.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2017-19451 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2011)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 28641] [FR Doc No: C1-2011-9404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1027; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-15]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Indianapolis Executive Airport, IN

Correction

    In rule document 2011-9404 appearing on pages 22013-22014 in the  issue of Wednesday, April 20, 2011, make the following corrections:

Sec.  71.1  [Corrected]

0 1. On page 22014, in the second column, on the 4th line from the bottom  of the page, ``86[deg]102'7'' W'' should read ``86[deg]10'27'' W''. 0 2. On the same page, in the third column, on the 4th line from the top  of the page, ``86[deg]092'0'' W'' should read ``86[deg]09'20'' W''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-9404 Filed 5-17-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 66 (Friday, April 7, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16980]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06895]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0370; EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0371; FRL-9960-89-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Base Year Emissions Inventory and
Emissions Statement Rule Certification for Lake and Porter Counties for
the 2008 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve two State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), both dated June
15, 2016. The first addresses emissions inventory requirements for the
Indiana portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
(IL-IN-WI) ozone nonattainment area under the 2008 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires
emissions inventories for all ozone nonattainment areas. The documented
emissions inventory included in Indiana's June 15, 2016, submission
meets this CAA requirement. The second submission provides Indiana's
certification that its existing Emissions Reporting Rule, previously
approved by EPA under a prior ozone standard, satisfies the CAA
emissions statement rule requirement for Lake and Porter Counties under
the 2008 ozone standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 8, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0370 (Emissions Statement) or by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2016-0371 (Emissions Inventory) at http://www.regulations.gov or via
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving IDEM's SIP revisions as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting
on this action should do so at this time. Please note that, if EPA
receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this
rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the
rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not
the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information see the
direct final rule, which is located in the Rules section of this
Federal Register.

    Dated: March 21, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-06895 Filed 4-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P