[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72937-72940]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29681]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 225 / Monday, November 23, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0670; FRL-9937-26-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
2008 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport for Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota and South Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the states of
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota that are intended to
demonstrate that the SIP for each respective state meets certain
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) for
the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
These submissions address the requirement that each SIP contain
adequate provisions prohibiting air emissions that will have certain
adverse air quality effects in other states. The EPA is proposing to
approve these SIPs for all four states as containing adequate
provisions to ensure that air emissions in the states do not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification Number EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0670. All documents in
the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available, i.e., Confidential Business Information or other information
the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in the hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 8, Office of
Partnership and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that you contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays. An electronic copy of the state's SIP compilation is
also available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/air/sip.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Clark, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On March 12, 2008, the EPA revised the levels of the primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to
0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). The CAA requires states to submit, within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIPs
meeting the applicable ``infrastructure'' elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2). One of these applicable infrastructure elements, CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), requires SIPs to contain ``good neighbor''
provisions to prohibit certain adverse air quality effects on
neighboring states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are
four sub-elements within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). This action
addresses the first two sub-elements of the good neighbor provisions,
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). These sub-elements require that each
SIP for a new or revised standard contain adequate provisions to
prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the
state from emitting air pollutants that will ``contribute significantly
to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with maintenance'' of the applicable
air quality standard in any other state. We note that the EPA has
addressed the interstate transport requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the eastern portion of the United States in
several past regulatory actions.\1\ We

most recently promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),
which addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the eastern portion
of the United States.\2\ CSAPR addressed multiple NAAQS, but did not
address the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NOX SIP Call, 63 FR 57371 (October 27, 1998);
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25172 (May 12, 2005); Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \2\ 76 FR 48208.
    \3\ CSAPR addressed the 1997 8-hour ozone, and the 1997 and 2006
fine particulate matter NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine
whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality
problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution
did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state
was not considered ``linked'' to identified downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly
contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those
downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's
emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality
and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions
reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe
it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to
establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of
interstate transport requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that EPA has not done an assessment to determine the
applicability of the one-percent screening threshold for western
states that contribute above the one percent threshold. There may be
additional considerations that may impact regulatory decisions
regarding potential linkages in the west identified by the modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In CSAPR, the EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of
one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether
one percent was appropriate.\5\ The EPA evaluated the comments received
and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low
threshold because there were important, even if relatively small,
contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors
from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a
higher or lower threshold than one percent, the EPA compiled the
contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of
different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. The EPA's
analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high
percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states,
while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger
percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent
threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting
downwind receptors would be excluded.\6\ In addition, the EPA
determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent
threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with
ambient ozone even at low levels.\7\ The EPA also determined that a
lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest
increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and
ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at
the one-percent level. The EPA determined that a ``0.5 percent
threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in
additional states that individually have a very small impact on those
receptors--an indicator that emission controls in those states are
likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor.
We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is
necessary or desirable.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 75 FR 45210, 45237 (August 2, 2010).
    \6\ See also Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support
Document, Appendix F, Analysis of Contribution Thresholds.
    \7\ 76 FR 48208, 48236-37.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the final CSAPR, the EPA determined that one percent was a
reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple
upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low
levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and the EPA's
previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. The EPA used a single
``bright line'' air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997
8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm.\9\ The projected contribution from
each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled
ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded
that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold
for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was
consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR,
and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any
future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis

    On August 4, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR
approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.\11\ The moderate area attainment date for the 2008
ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by
this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient
ozone data. Therefore, 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for
the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone
concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated
state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This
modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx
version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year, and the 2017 future base
case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and
maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2017.
The EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling
(CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor
Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017
base case nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017
projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a
modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and
adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting
technical support documents have been included in the docket for this
SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015) (Notice of Availability of
the Environmental protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport
Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The modeling data released in the August 4, 2015 NODA is the most
up-to-date information the EPA has developed to inform our analysis of
upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. For purposes of
evaluating these four states' interstate transport SIPs with respect to
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard, the EPA is proposing that states whose
contributions are less than one percent to downwind nonattainment and
maintenance receptors are considered non-significant.
    The modeling indicates that the relevant contributions from
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all below the
one-percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb.\12\ Colorado's largest
contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.36 ppb,
and its largest contribution to any projected downwind

maintenance-only site is 0.34 ppb. Montana's largest contribution to
any projected downwind nonattainment site is 0.15 ppb, and its largest
contribution to any projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.17
ppb. North Dakota's largest contribution to any projected downwind
nonattainment site is 0.14 ppb, and its largest contribution to any
projected downwind maintenance-only site is 0.28 ppb. South Dakota's
largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment site is
0.08 ppb, and its largest contribution to any projected downwind
maintenance-only site is 0.12 ppb. These values are all below the one-
percent screening threshold of 0.75 ppb, and therefore there are no
identified linkages between any of these four respective states and
2017 downwind projected nonattainment and maintenance sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id. at 46276, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. State Submissions and EPA's Assessment

    Each of the four states addressed in this proposed rulemaking made
a submission certifying the adequacy of their existing SIP to implement
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Colorado submitted its certification on
December 31, 2012; Montana submitted its certification on January 3,
2013; North Dakota submitted its certification on March 8, 2013; and
South Dakota submitted its certification on May 30, 2013. All of these
2008 ozone infrastructure SIPs are included in the docket for this
action. Each submission included an analysis of the respective SIP's
adequacy with regard to the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

A. Colorado

    In its December 31, 2012 submission, the State of Colorado
concluded that it did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in other states with respect to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Colorado based this conclusion on the distance from
the state to downwind 2008 ozone nonattainment areas and the overall
decrease in ozone emissions within Colorado. The EPA has determined
that distance is a relevant factor for an interstate transport
technical analysis because pollutant dispersion increases as distance
increases.\13\ Colorado did not provide a detailed analysis supporting
its conclusion, including any quantification of the distance to other
nonattainment areas or the amount of ozone emission reductions within
the state and over what timeframe. Moreover, Colorado suggests that it
need not perform a more detailed technical analysis until the EPA
provides guidance specific to the development of SIPs to address
interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As the Supreme Court
recently affirmed in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., the EPA is
not obligated to provide any information, guidance, or specific metrics
before a state must undertake to fulfill its obligation to address
interstate transport in its SIP. 134 S.Ct. 1584, 1601 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance on
SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006
24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS),'' September 25, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the state's incomplete technical analysis, the modeling
released in the EPA's August 4, 2015 NODA confirms Colorado's
conclusion that the State does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone standard
in any other state.\14\ Based on the modeling data and the information
provided in Colorado's submission, we are proposing to approve
Colorado's SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Montana

    In its January 3, 2013 submission, the State of Montana concluded
that it did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in other states with respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Montana based this conclusion on the existing permitting
programs to which current and future Montana ozone sources are subject,
as well as certain federal requirements such as applicable maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) and new source performance
standard (NSPS) requirements. While Montana did not provide information
or analysis explaining why the existing permitting programs support
their conclusion that emissions from within the state do not contribute
to downwind air quality problems, and the EPA does not agree that
permitting programs alone are necessarily sufficient to show non-
contribution or non-interference at a level that satisfies
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the EPA concurs with Montana's overall conclusion
that the State does not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any other
state based on the EPA's modeling data from the August 4, 2015
NODA.\15\ Based on that modeling data, we are proposing to approve
Montana's SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. North Dakota

    In its March 8, 2013 submission, the State of North Dakota
concluded that it did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in other states with respect to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. North Dakota based this conclusion in part on the
results of the modeling conducted for CSAPR, which included analysis of
North Dakota's downwind contributions for ozone (for the 1997 ozone
NAAQS). North Dakota noted that the CSAPR modeling predicted the
State's largest contribution to any projected downwind nonattainment
site to be 0.2 ppb, and the largest contribution to any projected
downwind maintenance-only site to be 0.1 ppb. As further evidence that
North Dakota neither contributes significantly to nonattainment nor
interferes with maintenance in other states, the State noted that its
point-source NOX emissions were ``steadily declining''
between 2002 and 2011, with more reductions expected as a result of
regional haze actions.
    The EPA notes that the modeling North Dakota relies upon was
conducted by the EPA in 2011, for purposes of evaluating upwind state
contributions and downwind air quality problems as to a prior, less-
stringent ozone NAAQS, and that the modeling evaluated a 2012
compliance year. Accordingly, the fact that this modeling showed
downwind contribution less than one percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
not necessarily dispositive of North Dakota's obligations under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). However, as discussed above, the EPA has conducted
more updated modeling subsequent to the State's SIP submission that
confirms the underlying conclusion of our 2011 modeling, and of North
Dakota's SIP submission: North Dakota does not significantly contribute
to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 8-hour ozone
standard in any other state. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve
North Dakota's SIP as meeting the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.

D. South Dakota

    In its May 30, 2013 submission, the State of South Dakota concluded
that it did not significantly contribute to

nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in other states with
respect to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The State explained that its
conclusion was ``based on South Dakota's emissions inventory,'' and
provided further supporting information in an attachment including (1)
demographic and geographic data; (2) an inventory of emissions and
locational data on 85 major Title V sources within South Dakota that
``potentially could impact air quality in neighboring states''; \16\
(3) topographical, distance, and meteorological information (including
windrose graphs); and (4) explanations for why this information
suggests that the impact of South Dakota's emissions on four nearby
nonattainment areas is minimal.\17\ Separately, South Dakota noted
plans to install controls to reduce NOX emissions by 70
percent from the largest source of ozone-forming pollution in the State
(Otter Tail's Big Stone power plant),\18\ as well as plans to install
controls on Black Hills Power's Ben French facility, the State's third
highest emitter of NOX at the time of the submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The State provided emissions inventories for seven such
potentially impacted ``neighboring states''--North Dakota,
Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana.
    \17\ Specifically, the State's submission discussed potential
impacts on (1) Sublette County, Wyoming (the only nonattainment area
in a State bordering South Dakota); (2) northeastern Colorado (the
``closest ozone non-attainment area to South Dakota''); and (3)
Sheyboygan County, Wisconsin and Chicago, Illinois (the ``non-
attainment areas . . . closest to the east side of South Dakota'').
    \18\ The EPA notes that these controls have been installed in
the time since South Dakota made this submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that South Dakota's analysis focuses solely on
potential impacts to the designated nonattainment areas closest to
South Dakota, and does not appear to address the potential for either
significant contribution to nonattainment areas located further away,
or interference with any maintenance of the standard in areas that
might currently be in attainment. Even if a state does not
significantly contribute to the most physically proximate nonattainment
areas, other factors may cause emissions from the state to affect
nonattainment areas that are farther away. Furthermore, because prong 1
and 2 concern air-quality impacts in different areas, even a state that
does not significantly contribute to nonattainment may still interfere
with maintenance of the standard in areas currently attaining.
Nonetheless, as discussed above, the modeling in the EPA's NODA
confirms South Dakota's underlying conclusion that the State does not
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone standard in any other state. Based on this modeling
data and the information and analysis provided in South Dakota's
submission, we are proposing to approve South Dakota's SIP as meeting
the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard.

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the following submittals as meeting
the interstate transport requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS: Colorado's December 31, 2012
submission; Montana's January 3, 2013 submission; North Dakota's March
8, 2013 submission; and South Dakota's May 30, 2013 submission. The EPA
is proposing this approval based on the information and analysis
provided by each state, as well as the modeling in EPA's August 4, 2015
NODA that confirms each state's conclusion that its SIP contains
adequate provisions to ensure that in-state air emissions will not
contribute significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. This action is being taken
under section 110 of the CAA.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law provisions
as meeting federal requirements and does not propose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not 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. In those areas of Indian country, the
proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: November 10, 2015.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2015-29681 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	May 25, 2010

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document (TSD)

		 EPA-R03-OAR-2010-0386; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking – Revision to
Emission Limitations for R. Paul Smith Power Station

FROM:	Marilyn Powers, Environmental Engineer /s/

Office of Air Program Planning

TO:		File

THRU:	Cristina Fernandez,   /s/

		Associate Director, Office of Air Program Planning

A.  BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2008 (73 FR 51599), EPA approved COMAR regulation
26.11.27 – Emission Limitations for Power Plants into Maryland’s
State Implementation Plan (SIP).  This regulation, adopted to implement
the statutory requirements of Maryland’s Healthy Air Act (HAA),
established emission limits for annual nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone
season NOx, and annual sulfur dioxides (SO2) for the 15 largest electric
generating units (EGU) in the State located at seven power plants,
including units 3 and 4 at R. Paul Smith Power Station in Washington
County, Maryland.

Maryland’s HAA has an exception that allows R. Paul Smith units 3 and
4 to operate without complying with the emission reduction requirements
set forth in the HAA if PJM Interconnection Inc. (PJM) determines that
the termination of operation of the facility will adversely affect the
reliability of electrical service in the PJM region.  Subsequent to
Maryland’s adoption of COMAR 26.11.27 and EPA’s approval of the rule
into the Maryland SIP, PJM determined that the R. Paul Smith facility is
needed to maintain electricity reliability in the State.  The HAA
requires that if R. Paul Smith units 3 and 4 are allowed to operate
without complying with the emissions limitations established in the
statute, certain conditions must be met.  These conditions require that
the facility not operate at emissions levels greater than the highest
level measured at the facility during the calendar years from 2000
through 2004, and that the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE)
must review the operations of the facility, then adopt regulations to
establish an alternative emissions requirement for the facility.  In
accordance with these statutory requirements, MDE revised COMAR 26.11.27
to establish alternate emission limits for these two EGUs at R. Paul
Smith.

	On November 20, 2009 (74 FR 60199), EPA determined that the
Martinsburg-Hagerstown area had attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard on the
basis of monitored air quality data from the three year period from 2006
through 2008.

B.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

	Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) dictates that the EPA
Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision
would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment
and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable
requirement of section 110.

	Maryland submitted COMAR 26.11.27 to EPA as one of the measures it is
relying on to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in
nonattainment areas throughout the State.  Washington County is part of
the Hagerstown-Martinsburg, MD-WV metropolitan statistical area, which
is in attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard but was designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 standard.  Washington County’s
attainment of the 8-hour ozone standard is based on an Early Action
Compact (EAC), approved on August 17, 2005 (70 FR 48283), that included
an action plan to assure the area continues to attain the standard
through 2012.  Washington County is also now attaining the PM2.5
standard, and has submitted a PM2.5 Attainment Plan for EPA’s
approval.  For EPA to approve this SIP revision for R. Paul Smith,
Maryland is required to demonstrate that the revised emission limits do
not impact either of these plans or any other programs under section
110.

C.  STATE’S SUBMITTAL:

On December 15, 2009, the MDE submitted a revision to the Maryland SIP
(Maryland revision #09-04) pertaining to the establishment of revised
NOx and SO2 emission limits for the EGUs located at R. Paul Smith.
These revised limits are set forth in Regulations .02 and .03 under
COMAR 26.11.27.  The submittal includes documentation that the revisions
were properly adopted via the State’s administrative procedures,
including public notice and opportunity for a public hearing.  The only
comments submitted were from EPA Region 3.  On January 27, 2010, EPA
determined that the submittal was administratively and technically
complete.

The changes to COMAR 26.11.27 involve the removal of the existing R.
Paul Smith caps from the statewide total cap and the addition of new
sections that set forth the higher caps, as follows:

- A new section C was added to Regulation .02 – Applicability and
Exemptions, which stipulates that the R. Paul Smith facility is subject
to the NOx and SO2 emissions in revised sections B(8) and C(3) of
Regulation .03 – General Requirements.

- Section B(8) changes the NOx annual tonnage limits for R. Paul Smith
from 416 tons to 1390 tons starting with the January 1, 2009 through
December 31, 2009 control period, and the NOx ozone season tonnage limit
from 140 tons to 545 tons starting with the 2009 ozone season.

- Section C(3) changes the SO2 annual tonnage from 1002 tons to 4590
tons starting with the January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 control
period.

It is noted that COMAR 26.11.27 also includes revisions to section D of
Regulation .03.  Maryland’s December 15, 2009 letter expressly
submitted only the NOx and SO2 limits in sections B and C as a SIP
revision.  As section D has not previously been approved as part of the
Maryland SIP, the revisions to Section D are excluded from this action.

D.  EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL:

	As noted previously, Maryland is relying on COMAR 26.11.27 as one of
the measures to help it attain the PM2.5 NAAQS in the Washington County
nonattainment area.  Section 110(l) requires that the revision not
interfere with any applicable requirement pertaining to attainment for
this area.

	In response to an EPA comment regarding the section 110(l)
requirements, Maryland submitted a demonstration to show that the
increase in caps for NOx ozone season, NOx annual and SO2 annual
emissions at R. Paul Smith do not impede Washington County’s
attainment of the 1997 NAAQS.  The demonstration is based on air
monitoring data, emissions analysis, and information from the attainment
modeling that was done by MANE-VU for this area.

	For 8-hour ozone, the State maintains that Washington County’s
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard is not affected by the
emission limit changes for R. Paul Smith contained in this SIP revision.
 The EAC for 8-hour ozone showed attainment starting in 2007, with an
Early Action Plan (EAP) to assure maintenance of the standard through
2012.  Because the EAC program pre-dated the adoption of the HAA
regulation, the emission limits originally required by COMAR 26.11.27
for R. Paul Smith were not reflected in the emission reductions relied
upon for the EAC, and are not relied upon for maintenance through 2012.
A review of the EAC and EAP showed that the projection of maintenance
for the five-year period from 2007 – 2012 does not include the HAA as
either a control measure or a contingency measure that is relied upon or
this facility.

	Likewise, for PM2.5, Maryland asserts that Washington County’s
attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 standard is not affected by this SIP
revision.  The State notes that Washington County has been attaining the
1997 annual and 24-hour standard since 2000, and has continued to meet
the standard through 2008.  As part of its section 110(l) demonstration,
Maryland included data from the Washington County attainment plan which
shows annual PM2.5 design values of 14.8 micrograms per cubic meter
(µg/m3) for the 2000 – 2002 period, with design values equal to or
less than 14.1 µg/m3 in the intervening years up to 2008.  Maryland
also provided information from the MANE-VU modeling which shows R. Paul
Smith emissions in 2009 as 1335 tons of NOx and 5426.8 tons of SO2..  On
this basis, the State asserts that the total NOx and SO2 emissions
projected for 2009, 6761.8 tons, is actually 11 percent higher than the
total NOx and SO2 emissions that would be allowed for R. Paul Smith by
this SIP revision, 5,980 tons.  Table 1 shows this comparison.

Table 1.  Comparison of emission caps to modeled values

Plant ID	Plant Name	2009 Projected Emissions	Revised Caps – this SIP
revision

043-0005	Allegany Energy Supply LLC – R. Paul Smith	NOx	SO2	NOx	SO2

1335	5426.80	1390	4590

	As shown in Table 1, the revised NOx limit for this facility, 1,390
tons, is actually higher than the 2009 model year NOx emission value,
1,335 tons, by 55 tons.  However, the SO2 limit for this facility, 4590
tons, is lower than the 2009 model year emissions, 5426.80 tons, by
836.8 tons.  EPA looked to the Washington County PM2.5 attainment plan
submitted by Maryland to evaluate this situation.  In order to address
the contingency measures required to be included in the attainment plan,
Maryland evaluated the equivalency of reductions for precursors of PM2.5
to see if the excess SO2 reductions were adequate to offset the
insufficient number of NOx reductions.  The evaluation of relative
impacts of reductions of NOx and SO2 for this area was based on the
modeling that was performed.  Section 10.1.2 of the attainment plan
explains how the relative reduction factor was derived:

“The recommended approach is to review existing data and sensitivity
studies performed as part of photochemical modeling to estimate the
relative impact of reductions in different precursors on PM
concentrations. Basing an equivalency ratio on relative reduction
factors as generated by the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ)
modeling results in a ratio of 1.1 to 1.4 tons of NOx for each ton of
SO2 . . . . Using sensitivity analyses created by Visibility Improvement
of State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS) and Georgia
Tech . . ., equivalency ratios range from 3.3 to 3.6 tons of NOx for
each ton of SO2.”

A relative reduction factor ranging from 1.1 to 3.6 tons of NOx for each
ton of SO2 is adequate to of offset the higher NOx value.  At the most
conservative ratio of 1.1, 55 tons of NOx is equivalent to 50 tons of
SO2.

	A further look at the air quality data for Washington County for 2009
is useful to inform this section 110(l) analysis, particularly as the
revised caps for R. Paul Smith became effective beginning in 2009.
Although not yet certified or quality-assured, monitored 2009 ambient
air quality concentration data for both 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 for the
Hagerstown – Martinsburg, MD-WV area continues to show attainment of
both standards, as can be seen in Table 2 and 3 below.  The data shown
in these tables is from the EPA Air Quality System (AQS), and the raw
data reports, from which the tabular data is derived, are included in
the docket for this action.

Table 2.  2009 Monitored Values for Annual PM2.5, in µg/m3

Site ID	City 	County 	State	First Quarter

2009	Second Quarter 2009	Third Quarter 2009	Fourth Quarter 2009

240430009	Hagerstown	Washington Co	MD	10.79	9.62	10.64	7.35

540030003	Martinsburg	Berkeley Co	WV	14.02	11.35	12.47	10.38

Table 3.  2009 Monitored Values for 8-hour Ozone, in ppb

Site ID	City	County	State	4th highest value in 2009 	Highest value in
2009

240430009	Hagerstown	Washington Co	MD	65	70

540030003	Martinsburg	Berkeley Co	WV	65	70

	Finally, one other factor to consider is that Maryland’s Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) is in effect throughout the State, and applies to
units 3 and 4 at the R. Paul Smith facility.  Maryland’s CAIR SIP
revision was approved on October 30, 2009 (74 FR 56117).  Under the CAIR
program, R. Paul Smith is allocated 191 tons of NOx allowances for the
ozone season trading program, 454 tons of NOx allowances for the annual
trading program, and 175 allowances for annual SO2. These CAIR ozone
season and annual allocations are less than the limits imposed in this
SIP revision, however, regardless of any emission limits established by
the State for these units, R. Paul Smith must comply with the NOx and
SO2 allowance holding requirements of CAIR – i.e. emissions that
exceed its allocations would need to be covered on a one-to-one basis by
obtaining additional allowances from the CAIR allowance market.  This
SIP revision therefore does not impact the CAIR trading program.

F.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

	EPA’s analysis of the impacts of this SIP revision concludes that it
does not negatively affect the attainment requirements for either the
PM2.5 or 8-hour ozone standards.  It is recommended that a notice of
proposed rulemaking be prepared approving the SIP revision.

 Annotated Code of Maryland Environment Title 2 Ambient Air Quality
Control Subtitle 10 Health Air Act Sections 2-1001 - 2-1005.

 Washington County, MD PM2.5 State Implementation Plan and Base Year
Inventory, February 29, 2008.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51633-51635]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20558]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72909; File No. SR-CHX-2014-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt a General Prohibition Against Affiliation Between the Exchange
and any Participant

August 25, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on August 18, 2014, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CHX proposes to adopt Article 3, Rule 20 that establishes a general
prohibition against affiliation between the Exchange and any
Participants. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at (www.chx.com) and in the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes 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 CHX 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 Changes

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Article 3, Rule 20 (No Affiliation
between Exchange and any Participant). The purpose of the proposed rule
is to guard against any possibility that the Exchange may exercise, or
forbear to exercise, regulatory authority with respect to an affiliated
Participant \4\ in a manner that is influenced by commercial
considerations and to provide an opportunity for Commission review of
certain proposed affiliations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s) provides, in pertinent part, that
```Participant' means, except as otherwise described in these Rules,
any Participant Firm that hold a valid Trading Permit'' and that a
``Participant shall be considered a `member' of the Exchange for the
purposes of the Exchange Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed rule provides that the Exchange or any
entity with which it is affiliated shall not, directly or indirectly,
acquire or maintain an ownership interest in a Participant in the
absence of an effective filing under Section 19(b) of the Act.\5\ The
proposed rule defines ``affiliate'' with reference to Rule 12b-2 under
the Act.\6\ In addition, in order to make it clear that the obligation
to avoid affiliations applies to both the Exchange and its
Participants, the proposed rule also provides that a Participant shall
not be or become an affiliate of the Exchange, or an affiliate of any
affiliate of the Exchange, in the absence of an effective filing under
Section 19(b) of the Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \6\ Rule 12b-2 under the Act provides the following definition
of ``affiliate'': Affiliate. An ``affiliate'' of, or a person
``affiliated'' with, a specified person, is a person that directly,
or indirectly through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is
controlled by, or is under common control with, the person
specified. 17 CFR 240.12b-2.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, the proposed rule provides that nothing in this proposed
rule shall prohibit a Participant or its affiliate from acquiring or
holding an equity interest in CHX Holdings, Inc. that is permitted by
the ownership and voting limitation contained in the Certificate of
Incorporation of CHX Holdings, Inc. Specifically, paragraph (b)(ii)(B)
of the fifth section of the Certificate of Incorporation of CHX
Holdings, Inc. provides that no Person, either alone or together with
its Related Persons,\8\ who holds a trading permit of the Exchange
(i.e., a Participant), may own, directly or indirectly, of record or
beneficially shares of stock of CHX Holdings, Inc. representing in the
aggregate more than twenty percent (20%) of the then outstanding votes
entitled to be cast on any matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Paragraph (a)(ii) of the fifth section of the Certificate of
Incorporation of CHX Holdings, Inc. states as follows: The term
``Related Persons'' shall mean (A) with respect to any Person, all
``affiliates'' and ``associates'' of such Persons (as such terms are
defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended); (B) with respect to any Person that holds a permit
issued by the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. to trade securities on
the Chicago Stock Exchange (``Participant''), any broker or dealer
with which a Participant is associated; and (C) any two or more
Persons that have any agreement, arrangement or understanding
(whether or not in writing) to act together for the purpose of
acquiring, voting, holding or disposing of shares of the capital
stock of the Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule also limits possible expansive interpretations of
the term ``affiliate'' by providing that nothing in the proposed rule
shall prohibit a Participant from being or becoming an affiliate of the
Exchange, or an affiliate of any affiliate of the Exchange, solely by
reason of such Participant or any officer, director, manager, managing
member, partner or affiliate of such Participant being or becoming
either (a) a Director (as such term is defined in the Bylaws of the
Exchange) pursuant to the Bylaws of the Exchange, or (b) a Director
serving on the Board of Directors of CHX Holdings, Inc.
    The Exchange believes that it is currently in compliance with the
proposed rule. The Exchange and CHXBD, LLC are both wholly owned
subsidiaries of CHX Holdings, Inc. (together ``CHX affiliates''). None
of the CHX affiliates have an ownership interest in a Participant and
neither CHX Holdings, Inc. nor CHXBD, LLC are Participants.\9\
Moreover, although some

Participants currently hold an equity interest in CHX Holdings, Inc.,
as currently permitted and limited by the Certificate of Incorporation
of CHX Holdings, Inc., the Exchange does not believe that any of these
Participants are affiliated with the Exchange or any affiliate of the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CHXBD, LLC is a registered broker-dealer and member of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. However, CHXBD, LLC is not
yet a Participant of the Exchange nor is it operational. The
Exchange intends to operate CHXBD, LLC as an outbound routing
facility of the Exchange only upon adoption of effective rules
pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act and notice to Participants. See
17 CFR 240.19b-4. In addition, CHXBD, LLC will only become a
Participant of the Exchange pursuant to an effective filing under
Section 19(b) of the Act. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to adopt a
general prohibition of affiliation between the Exchange and any
Participant is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act in general \10\
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) in particular,\11\
because it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transaction in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and, in general, by protecting
investors and the public interest. Specifically, the proposed rule
would guard against any possibility that the Exchange may exercise, or
forbear to exercise, regulatory authority with respect to an affiliated
Participant in a manner that is influenced by commercial considerations
by (1) establishing a general prohibition on affiliation between the
Exchange and Participants and (2) requiring an effective filing
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Act \12\ before the Exchange acquires
or maintains an ownership interest in a Participant or a Participant
becomes affiliated with the Exchange or any of its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change
implicates any competitive issues because the proposed rule only
addresses the relationship between the Exchange and its Participants.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission notes that it has previously expressed concern
about the potential for unfair competition and conflicts of interest
between an exchange's self-regulatory obligations and its commercial
interests that could exist if an exchange were to otherwise become
affiliated with one of its members, as well as the potential for unfair
competitive advantage that the affiliated member could have by virtue
of informational or operational advantages, or the ability to receive
preferential treatment.\15\ The Exchange states the purpose of the
proposed rule is to guard against any possibility that the Exchange may
exercise, or forbear to exercise, regulatory authority with respect to
an affiliated Participant in a manner that is influenced by commercial
considerations and to provide an opportunity for Commission review of
certain proposed affiliations,\16\ and that waiver of the 30-day
operative delay will allow the Exchange to provide immediate
transparency concerning its position on affiliations with
Participants.\17\ The Commission also notes that the proposed rule is
consistent with the rules of other national securities exchanges
previously approved by the Commission.\18\ For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58375
(August 18, 2008), 73 FR 49498 (August 21, 2008) (approving the
registration of BATS Exchange as a national securities exchange)
(``BATS Exchange Approval''), at 49502 n.90 and accompanying text.
    \16\ See supra note 4 and accompanying text.
    \17\ See SR-CHX-2014-13, Item 7.
    \18\ See, e.g., BYX Rule 2.10 and Nasdaq Rule 2160(a); BATS
Exchange Approval, supra note 15; and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 54170 (July 18, 2006), 71 FR 42149 (July 25, 2006)
(approving Nasdaq's rule restricting affiliations between Nasdaq and
its members).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2014-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2014-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the CHX. 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-CHX-2014-13 and should be submitted on or before
September 19, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-20558 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23492-23495]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09149]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0083; FRL-9804-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Particulate Matter Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a request submitted by the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (IDEM) on January 30, 2013, to revise the
Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). This submission contains the 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated by EPA in 2006, and removes the annual coarse
particle (PM10) NAAQS that EPA has previously revoked. The
submission also asks EPA to approve into the SIP certain Federally
regulated criteria pollutant definitions and abbreviations.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective June 18, 2013, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by May 20, 2013. If adverse comments are
received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not
take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0083 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-

0083. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 886-0258 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
    A. When and why did the State make this submission?
    B. Did the State hold public hearings for this submission?
II. What is EPA's analysis of IDEM's submission?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. When and why did the State make this submittal?

    On January 30, 2013, IDEM submitted as SIP revisions regulatory
provisions addressing the NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10 and PM2.5.
EPA will be taking separate action on NO2 and SO2
in a future rulemaking. In this notice, EPA is addressing the
submission with regard to the current primary and secondary 24-hour
NAAQS for PM2.5,\1\ which were published in the Federal
Register on October 17, 2006 (see 71 FR 61144) and codified at 40 CFR
50.13, ``National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
for PM2.5.'' In the submission, IDEM has also requested that
EPA remove from the SIP the annual PM10 NAAQS that EPA
revoked on July 1, 2006. At the State level, these provisions regarding
PM2.5 and PM10 became effective on January 18,
2013. IDEM's revisions ensure consistency between the State and Federal
definitions of the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS, as well
as in the determination of attainment of those NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note that on January 15, 2013, the revised primary annual
PM2.5 NAAQS was published in the Federal Register (see 78
FR 3086). The State's submissions, as well as today's rulemaking, do
not extend to this NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The January 30, 2013, submission also includes a list of the
Federally regulated criteria pollutant definitions and abbreviations to
be used in a rule that delineates attainment status designations for
each county in Indiana. These definitions became effective at the State
level on January 18, 2013, and are intended to serve as a key or
glossary for the remainder of the rule. In this rulemaking notice, EPA
will be taking action on the definitions and abbreviations related to
PM2.5 and PM10.

B. Did the State hold public hearings for this submission?

    A public hearing for these revisions was held on November 7, 2012.
No comments were received at this hearing.

II. What is EPA's analysis of IDEM's submission?

    On October 17, 2006, revisions to the 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS were published in the Federal Register (see 71 FR 61144). The
primary (health-based) PM2.5 NAAQS was strengthened to 35
micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), measured as a 24-hour average
concentration. The secondary (welfare-based) PM2.5 NAAQS was
revised to be identical to the primary PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
codified these revisions at 40 CFR 50.13.
    Under 40 CFR 50.13(a), ambient 24-hour average PM2.5
concentrations are to be measured by either: (1) A reference method
based on appendix L to 40 CFR part 50 (``Reference Method for the
Determination of Fine Particulate Matter as PM2.5 in the
Atmosphere'') and designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53
(``Ambient Air Monitoring Reference and Equivalent Methods''); or (2)
an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR part 53. In
addition, under 40 CFR 50.13(c), determinations as to whether the 24-
hour PM2.5 standards have been met are to be made in
accordance with the data handling conventions and computations in 40
CFR part 50, appendix N (``Interpretation of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for PM2.5'').
    In IDEM's January 30, 2013, submission, the State requested that
EPA approve 326 Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) 1-3-4 (b)(8), as
revised to reflect EPA's revised primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. IDEM's requested revisions are substantively
identical to the provisions contained in 40 CFR 50.13. Specifically,
the definition of the NAAQS, the calculations for determining
attainment of the NAAQS, and the mechanism to measure ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 are consistent with 40 CFR 50.13.
    IDEM's rule contains the primary and secondary 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\, which are achieved when 98th
percentile 24-hour average concentration is equal to, or less than, 35
[mu]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with appendix N to 40 CFR part
50. Indiana has incorporated appendix N by reference into the SIP.
    Indiana's submission also incorporates by reference appendix L to
40 CFR part 50, which contains the data handling conventions and
computations for determining whether the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
have been met. It should be noted, however, that a determination of
what constitutes a ``Federal Equivalent Method'' under 40 CFR
50.13(a)(2) can only be made by the Administrator of EPA.

    On July 1, 2006, EPA revoked the annual PM10 NAAQS (see
71 FR 61144). Indiana has requested that EPA remove the portions of 326
IAC 1-3-4(b)(7) that contain or make reference to the former annual
PM10 NAAQS.
    Aligning State and Federal ambient air quality standards,
calculations for compliance, and ambient concentration collection
methods ensure consistency between EPA's and IDEM's PM2.5
and PM10 NAAQS. Because the State has adopted regulations
that are wholly consistent with the Federal NAAQS, EPA concludes that
IDEM's requested revision concerning the incorporation of the 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is approvable. EPA also concludes that IDEM's
requested removal of the annual PM10 NAAQS is approvable.
    Indiana also requests in its submission that EPA approve a list of
Federally regulated criteria pollutant definitions and abbreviations
into the SIP, specifically at 326 IAC 1-4-1. These terms include
``SO2'', ``CO'' (carbon monoxide), ``O3''
(ozone), ``NO2'', and ``Pb'' (lead). Indiana has requested
that ``PM10'' have the meaning set forth in 326 IAC 1-2-52.4
and that ``PM2.5'' has the meaning set forth in 326 IAC 1-2-
52.2. EPA has previously approved both 326 IAC 1-2-52.2 and 326 IAC 1-
2-52.4 into the SIP, and IDEM is not seeking to revise those
definitions. Because this list of terms and abbreviations are wholly
consistent at the State and Federal levels, and are meant as a
clarification for future SIP submissions related to 326 IAC 1-4-1, EPA
concludes that this requested revision is approvable.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving portions of a submission from IDEM that contains
the Federally promulgated 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS codified at 40
CFR 50.13 and removes a portion of Indiana's SIP as it relates to the
annual PM10 NAAQS, as EPA revoked this particular NAAQS in
2006. Finally, EPA is approving portions of the January 30, 2013,
submission from Indiana that add a list of criteria pollutant
definitions and acronyms to Indiana's rules that relate to concerning
attainment status designations.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective June 18, 2013
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by May 20, 2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw
this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent
document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments
received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the
proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period;
therefore, any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this action will
be effective June 18, 2013.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 18, 2013. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: April 4, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``1-3-4'' and adding a new entry in numerical order for
``1-4-1'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA-Approved Indiana Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Indiana effective
         Indiana citation                   Subject                  date                    EPA approval date                         Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Rule 3. Ambient Air Quality Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3-4............................  Ambient air quality        1/18/2013           4/19/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE    (b)(7) and (b)(8) only.
                                    standards.                                     THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Rule 4. Attainment Status Designations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-4-1............................  Definitions..............  1/18/2013           4/19/2013, [INSERT PAGE NUMBER WHERE    ..............................
                                                                                THE DOCUMENT BEGINS].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2013-09149 Filed 4-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P