[Federal Register: November 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 221)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 64570-64573]
[DOCID:fr16no07-20]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 87

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294; FRL-8495-4]

Petition Requesting Rulemaking To Limit Lead Emissions from
General Aviation Aircraft; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: Friends of the Earth has filed a petition with EPA, requesting
that EPA find pursuant to section 231 of the Clean Air Act that lead
emissions from general aviation aircraft cause or contribute to air
pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare and that EPA propose emissions standards for lead from
general aviation aircraft. Alternatively, Friends of the Earth requests
that EPA commence a study and investigation of the health and
environmental impacts of lead emissions from general aviation aircraft,
if EPA believes that insufficient information exists to make such a
finding. The petition submitted by Friends of the Earth explains their
view that lead emissions from general aviation aircraft endanger the
public health and welfare, creating a duty for the EPA to propose
emission standards. EPA invites information and comments from all
interested parties on the issues raised by this petition.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0294, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
OAR-2007-0294.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail. Send your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-2007-
0294.
     Hand Delivery. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention: Docket ID No. OAR-
2007-0294. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0294. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov. The

http://www.regulations.gov website 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 e-mail comment
directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail

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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation Docket

in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Docket ID No. OAR-2007-0294.
This docket is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air and
Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Manning, Assessment and
Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 2000
Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Assessment and Standards Division Hotline; telephone number: (734) 214-
4636; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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 appropriate docket identification number in
the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be
helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation
related to your comments.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible.
     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.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. The Friends of the Earth Petition

    This notice is seeking comment on and information related to a
petition for an EPA finding and rulemaking and collateral relief from
the Friends of the Earth. This petition is seeking the regulation of
lead emissions from piston-powered general aviation aircraft under
section 231 of the Clean Air Act. The complete petition of Friends of
the Earth is available from their Web site, the docket, from the EPA
Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm, or from the individual

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above.
    Friends of the Earth is an environmental advocacy organization
headquartered in Washington, DC. The petition they submitted concerns
the use of leaded aviation gasoline in piston-powered general aviation
aircraft in the U.S. Friends of the Earth believes that ``EPA action
regarding lead in general aviation aircraft is long overdue. Studies
increasingly show that lead in any quantity threatens the public
welfare. Lead emissions from general aviation aircraft constitute a
substantial proportion of all current lead air emissions. As a result
of the use of leaded aviation gasoline, humans and ecological receptors
at or near general aviation airports may be exposed to elevated levels
of lead.''
    Friends of the Earth contends that ``safe unleaded alternatives to
aviation gasoline do exist. Since 1999, the research and development
process has produced unleaded fuels that have received approval from
the FAA for current use. Tens of thousands of low-performance aircraft
have received supplemental type certificates allowing them to run on
unleaded automobile gasoline (commonly referred to as mogas in the
aviation community). Additionally, a mogas alternative, 82UL, has been
developed for use by some low-performance planes. The combination of
these two fuels can be utilized by nearly seventy percent of all
piston-driven aircraft. Additionally, the FAA allows a select number of
planes to run on an ethanol based aviation fuel (AGE85); the remaining
thirty percent of general aviation planes can potentially use this
unleaded gasoline.''
    The Friends of the Earth petition was addressed to EPA. Both EPA
and the FAA have specific statutorily defined roles regarding aviation.
EPA through section 231 of the Clean Air Act can make findings
regarding air pollution emissions from aircraft and set standards
regulating such emissions and FAA has the statutory authority to
regulate the fuel used in aircraft (49 U.S.C. 44714). By this Notice,
EPA is soliciting comment on the petition, specifically on the points
discussed in the section ``Request for Comments'' presented below. EPA
will use this information in its statutory assessment of whether lead
emissions from piston-powered general aviation cause or contribute to
air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public
health or welfare.

III. Background Regarding Lead in Aviation Fuel

    In a variety of chemical forms and exposure pathways, lead has long
been recognized as causing serious adverse health effects. In 1978 EPA
established a National Ambient Air Quality Standard for lead of 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter, as a maximum quarterly average. Research
completed since that time, discussed in EPA's Air Quality Criteria
Document for Lead (2006) indicates that health effects of lead occur at
blood lead levels lower than those previously reported and include
concerns not previously studied (available at http://www.epa.gov/ncea). The

adverse effects of lead include neurotoxic effects (e.g., IQ loss in
children), effects on the immune system, red blood cell production,
cardiovascular system, kidney, bones, teeth and reproductive and
developmental systems. EPA is currently conducting a review of the
NAAQS which has included the assessment of health and welfare effects
of lead documented in the Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead
(2006). Integral to the NAAQS review are decisions regarding the
adequacy of the current standard for lead and whether the Agency should
retain or revise it. Consistent with the court order regarding this
review, the review and regulatory development process will be completed
by September 1, 2008. Additional information about the review is
available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html
.

    Thirty-five years ago, cars and trucks were the major contributors
of lead emissions to the air. In the 1970s, EPA set national
regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1974,
unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with
catalytic converters. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway
vehicles after December 1995. As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts
to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation
sector have dramatically declined (96 percent between 1980 and 2005).
The large reductions in lead emissions from motor vehicles have changed
the nature of the air quality lead problem in the United States.
Industrial processes, particularly primary and secondary lead smelters,
utility boilers, and battery manufacturers taken together, are now
responsible for most lead emissions into the atmosphere.
    Currently, tetraethyl lead (TEL) is added to gasoline used in most
piston-engine powered aircraft. The 2002 National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) estimates that lead emissions from the use of leaded aviation
gasoline (commonly referred to as avgas) are 491 tons; this accounts
for 29 percent of the air pollution emissions inventory for lead, and
is overall, the largest source category. This estimate is based on the
Department of Energy estimate of about 281 million gallons of avgas
supplied in the U.S. in 2002 (data available at http://www.tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mgaupus1A.htm
). In 2006 the volume

of avgas supplied in the U.S. was about 280 million gallons. The
majority of avgas contains up to 0.56 grams of lead per liter (2.12
grams of lead/gallon). This is referred to as 100 Low Lead (100LL).
There is another grade of 100

octane avgas that contains 1.12 grams of lead per liter, but this
product is not widely available.
    According to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) General
Aviation and Air Taxi Activity and Avionics (GAATAA) survey (2005),
there were over 190,000 piston-engine powered aircraft engaged in
flight operations in the U.S. in 2005; these aircraft comprised
approximately 90 percent of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet.
In 2005, approximately 29 million landing and take-off events (58
million total operations) were conducted by piston-engine powered
aircraft. Among the total hours flown by general aviation aircraft,
about 68 percent occurred in a piston-engine powered aircraft.
According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA),
there were approximately 2,750 new piston-engine powered aircraft
manufactured in 2006. This is the largest production volume over the
past ten years and reflects an average annual increase in sales that
ranged from eight to 43 percent during the preceding 10-year period
except for 2001 and 2002. GAMA estimates that the average piston-engine
powered aircraft is 35-40 years old.
    Avgas and automotive unleaded gasoline are both derived and blended
from the refining of petroleum. However, due to the different nature of
engine designs and operating environments these two types of gasoline
are different in their chemical composition. Avgas is refined and
blended to meet ASTM specification D910 while automotive unleaded
gasoline (commonly referred to as mogas) meets ASTM specification
D4814. Generally, avgas is transported independent of other fuel to
avoid cross-contamination and to maintain the tight specifications of
avgas required for proper engine operation in general aviation
applications. TEL is added to avgas to increase octane, prevent
knock,\1\ and prevent valve seat recession and subsequent loss of
compression for engines without hardened valves. Lead and other
additives are added downstream of the refinery; most avgas is
distributed by truck directly from the refinery to the bulk gasoline
terminals or bulk plants or to the storage tanks and refueling
equipment at airports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Knocking is the sound produced when some of the unburned
fuel in the cylinder ignites spontaneously resulting in rapid
burning and a precipitous rise in cylinder pressure that creates the
characteristic knocking or pinging sound (Chevron 2005 available at:
http://www.chevronglobalaviation.com/docs/aviation_tech_review.pdf
).

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

    Most piston engines used in general aviation are type certified by
FAA for the use of leaded avgas (mostly 100LL). The FAA has issued
supplemental type certificates (STCs) qualifying piston engines used in
general aviation to use unleaded avgas. There are two types of unleaded
gasoline reflected in these STCs. The first type of unleaded gasoline
which can be used under STCs is ethanol-free unleaded automotive
gasoline (mogas). Most aircraft using this mogas have low-compression
engines which were originally certified to run on leaded 80/87 avgas
and require only 87 antiknock index gasoline. The second type is known
as 82UL avgas, which is unleaded fuel similar to automobile gasoline
but without additives. It may be used in aircraft that have an STC for
the use of automobile gasoline with an aviation lean octane rating of
82 or less or an antiknock index of 87 or less. ASTM specification
D6227 has been established for 82UL but this fuel has not yet been
produced for general distribution.\2\ About 97 percent of gasoline used
in piston-engine powered aircraft is leaded avgas, mostly 100LL. The
remaining three percent is ethanol-free unleaded automotive gasoline
(mogas).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 82UL has not yet been produced for general distribution due
to limited demand. It would be a fraction of the 100LL market. It is
an aviation grade product, and thus, refiners can not simply alter
mogas to make 82UL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Experimental Aircraft Association and Petersen Aviation
estimate that ethanol-free unleaded gasoline can be used in
approximately 40 percent of the piston-engine powered aircraft fleet
(e.g., those aircraft with low-compression engines).\3\ In contrast, in
order to prevent knock or detonation during the combustion process,
high-compression piston engines require higher octane than typical
unleaded gasoline provides. These aircraft also typically have higher
utilization rates and fuel consumption rates than their low-compression
counterparts. The AOPA estimates that high-compression piston-engine
powered aircraft currently consume approximately 70 percent of the
leaded avgas supplied nationally, and that the remaining 30 percent of
the leaded avgas is used in aircraft that could also use ethanol-free
unleaded automotive gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Experimental Aircraft Association and Petersen Aviation
data are available at http://www.aviationfuel.org and www.autofuelstc.com/

autofuelstc/pa/PetersenAviation.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Efforts to explore reduced lead emissions from piston-engine
powered aircraft have primarily focused on fuels to replace 100LL
avgas, with less attention given to potential engine modifications. The
FAA conducts research exploring replacement fuels for use in piston-
engine powered aircraft at its William J. Hughes Technical Center.
Publications from this research can be found at http://www.actlibrary.tc.faa.gov/
 by searching for `unleaded avgas'. The

Coordinating Research Council has organized the Unleaded Aviation
Gasoline Development Group which brings together FAA, AOPA, GAMA, the
Experimental Aircraft Association, airframe manufacturers, engine
manufacturers, fuel producers and other interested parties. The
objective of the group is to facilitate development of a high-octane
unleaded aviation gasoline as an environmentally compatible, cost-
effective replacement for the current 100LL avgas. Documents regarding
the CRC Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development Group can be found in
the docket for this notice.
    At the 23rd World Assembly of the International AOPA, Lennart
Persson of Hjelmco Oil in Sweden suggested that a 91/96 octane unleaded
avgas could be a transparent switchover for 70 percent of the U.S.
general aviation fleet. He indicated that this fuel would provide
similar performance to 100LL avgas and has done so successfully in
Sweden for 15 years. It is now offered for sale at 70 locations in
Sweden. For more information see http://www.iaopa.org/info/assembly23/ppts/persson.pdf

IV. Request for Comments

    EPA is soliciting public comment on any and all aspects of the
petition from Friends of the Earth regarding issues related to the use
of lead in general aviation gasoline. To assist us in developing our
response to the petition EPA specifically requests information and
comment on the following.
    1. EPA requests information related to human and environmental lead
exposures and effects around airports. Specifically, we request
information on concentrations of lead in the air, soil, surface water
or other environmental media at or near airports where leaded avgas is
used. Information regarding sources of lead in addition to leaded avgas
in these areas is also requested.
    2. We request information on levels of lead in indoor dust in homes
in the vicinity of airports where leaded avgas is used and information
regarding the presence of leaded paint in those homes.
    3. We request information on blood lead levels in children and
adults residing or attending school in the vicinity of an airport where
leaded avgas is used.

    4. We request information on the characteristics of the populations
residing in the vicinity of an airport where leaded avgas is used,
specifically, information regarding the number of children six years
and younger, the number of schools, daycare facilities, retirement
homes, and the socioeconomic status of the population.
    5. EPA request information on the volume of leaded avgas and
unleaded aviation gasoline (mogas) supplied at individual airports
nationwide.
    6. EPA requests comment on locations where unleaded aviation
gasoline is available and the reason for its apparent lack of
widespread availability. We request the submission of information
related to supplying unleaded aviation gasoline at airports and how
potential fuel distribution issues could be addressed.
    7. EPA requests information on the characteristics of piston engine
general aviation operation, including annual LTOs by airport, LTO
characteristics per airport and aircraft/engine type including mode,
time-in-mode, and fuel flow rate in mode. Related to this, EPA requests
information on the frequency and duration of local area flights
(including touch/go operations) and flight durations within the mixing
layer.
    8. EPA requests information on the disposal of leaded avgas after a
pilot checks the fuel before starting the aircraft. Specifically, we
request information on how this fuel is discarded (i.e., is it
deposited on the tarmac) or otherwise handled?
    9. Leaded avgas contains ethylene dibromide which acts as a
scavenger for lead by converting lead oxide to lead bromide compounds
which are volatile and easily exhausted from the engine. This prevents
lead oxide depositing on the valves and spark plugs where it could
damage the engine. EPA requests information on the variation in lead
emission rates at various operating modes and power settings and the
quantity of lead retained in the engine and engine oil as a fraction of
the lead in the fuel combusted.
    10. EPA is requesting comments on the potential use of replacement
fuels for use in piston-engine powered aircraft. Approximately 40
percent of the piston-engine powered aircraft fleet is certified with
an STC allowing the use of ethanol-free unleaded gasoline (82UL or
``mogas''), but these fuels are not widely available at airports.
Information available to EPA suggests that 30 percent of the 100LL
avgas consumed could be replaced by unleaded gasoline. These aircraft
are equipped with low-compression engines that may also run on leaded
aviation fuel when mogas or 82UL is not available.
    11. We request analysis of the prospects for developing an unleaded
fuel for the general aviation fleet that will meet the needs of high-
compression engines, including additional research needed.
    12. EPA is requesting comment on the viability of a high-octane
unleaded aviation gasoline in a high-compression engine to provide
equivalent performance and safety to 100LL avgas.
    13. In this context, EPA requests comment on the viability of the
use of ethyl tertiary-butyl ether (ETBE) or other octane enhancing
compounds for unleaded fuel.
    14. We also request information on what modifications would need to
be made to the existing fleet of high-compression engines as well as
new engines, with appropriate lead time, for them to operate on high-
octane unleaded fuel with an equivalent margin of safety. In
particular, we solicit comment on electronic ignition systems (full
authority digital engine control) and knock (detonation) sensors,
including comments on further research on these technologies. One
example for consideration is the Teledyne Continental Motors/Aerosance
Powerlink FADEC system.
    15. EPA also requests information on the ability of current engines
to operate on avgas with a decreased lead content relative to 100LL,
and identification of the minimum lead content needed to maintain safe
engine operation.
    16. EPA requests comment on the storage of avgas, specifically,
issues related to above ground storage capacity compared to below-
ground storage capacity.
    17. EPA requests comment on the availability of additives less
toxic than lead to enhance aviation gasoline octane.
    18. We request comment on the long-term availability of TEL as an
avgas additive.
    19. We request information related to the feasibility and costs of
any potential options for limiting lead emissions from existing
aircraft.
    20. We request comment on the STCs which have been approved to
allow for the use of unleaded gasoline in general aviation, the percent
and characteristics of the current fleet covered by STCs, and obstacles
to wider acceptance and application of the STCs.
    21. EPA is requesting comment on additional research on alcohol-
based fuels of which we should be aware. The FAA has approved a very
limited number of STCs for use of ethanol-based AGE-85 fuel (85%
ethanol in 15% unleaded gasoline) under a preliminary fuel
specification. Subsequent approvals allowing more widespread use of
AGE-85 are pending the development of a final, aviation-grade fuel
specification to ensure potential safety concerns with the fuel are
fully vetted by the FAA and the aviation industry.
    22. EPA is requesting comment on additional research or information
regarding the use of diesel engines in general aviation, particularly
regarding equipment changes and the related costs. The FAA has approved
Type Certificates and STCs for diesel-cycle engines that use widely-
available, unleaded jet fuel.
    Before the end of the comment period, please send all comments and
related information to the address indicated in the ADDRESSES section
at the beginning of this notice.

    Dated: November 9, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E7-22456 Filed 11-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 18846-18848]
[DOCID:fr07ap08-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57597; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-24]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Position and Exercise Limits on IWM Options

April 1, 2008.
    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 March 28, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange''
or ``Phlx'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1001, Position Limits, to
establish increased position limits of 500,000 for options (``IMW
Options'') on the exchange-traded fund (``ETF'') overlying the iShares
Russell 2000 Index (``IWM''). The text of the rule proposal is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.phlx.com), at the
offices of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish in Phlx
Rule 1001 increased position limits of 500,000 contracts for IWM
Options, which should encourage a more liquid and competitive market
environment to the benefit of customers interested in the product.
    About a year ago, the IWM Options position limit was increased to
500,000 contracts pursuant to a CBOE and ISE pilot program (the ``IWM
Pilot'').\5\ The Commission recently permanently approved this position
limit pilot.\6\ The Exchange now seeks to similarly increase its
position limit on IWM Options to 500,000 contracts.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The proposal that established the IWM Pilot was designated
to be effective and operative upon filing. See, e.g., Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 55176 (January 25, 2007), 72 FR 4741
(February 1, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-08) and 55175 (January 25, 2007),
72 FR 4753 (February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-07). The IWM Pilot was
extended through March 1, 2008. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 57141 (January 14, 2008), 73 FR 3496 (January 18, 2008) (SR-
CBOE-2007-147) and 57144 (January 14, 2008), 73 FR 3785 (January 22,
2008) (SR-ISE-2008-03). The Exchange did not participate in the
pilot program.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57352 (February 19,
2008), 73 FR 10076 (February 25, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-07). Other
options exchanges similarly have a 500,000 contract IWM Options
position limit. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57415
(March 3, 2008), 73 FR 12479 (March 7, 2008) (SR-Amex-2008-16);
57414 (March 3, 2008), 73 FR 12481 (March 7, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-12);
57416 (March 3, 2008), 73 FR 12489 (March 7, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-20);
and 57417 (March 3, 2008), 73 FR 12788 (March 10, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2008-26). Position limit increases for other option
products have also been approved recently. See Securities Exchange
Release No. 57418 (March 3, 2008), 73 FR 12493 (March 7, 2008) (SR-
Phlx-2008-14) (QQQQs position limit).
    \7\ Phlx Rule 1002, which the Exchange does not propose to
amend, establishes exercise limits for equity options at the same
levels as the applicable position limits. Phlx Rule 1002 states in
part that ``no member or member organization shall exercise, for any
account in which such member or member organization has an interest
or for the account of any partner, officer, director or employee
thereof or for the account of any customer, a long position in any
option contract of a class of options dealt in on the Exchange * * *
if as a result thereof such member or member organization, or
partner, officer, director or employee thereof or customer, acting
alone or in concert with others, directly or indirectly, has or will
have exercised within any five (5) consecutive business days
aggregate long positions in that class (put or call) as set forth as
the position limit in Rule 1001 * * * ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although position limits have lately enjoyed permanent expansion,
there has been a steadfast and significant increase over the last
decade in the overall volume of exchange-traded options. Part of this
volume is attributable to a corresponding increase in the number of
overall market participants. This growth in market participation has in
turn brought about additional depth and increased liquidity in
exchange-traded options.
    As the anniversary of listed options trading approaches its 35th
year, the Exchange believes that the existing surveillance procedures
and reporting requirements at the Exchange, at other options exchanges,
and at the several clearing firms are capable of properly identifying
unusual and/or illegal trading activity. These procedures include daily
monitoring of market movements via automated surveillance techniques to
identify unusual activities in both options and underlying stocks and
ETFs.
    The current financial requirements imposed by the Exchange and by
the Commission should address any concerns that a member or its
customer

may try to maintain an inordinately large unhedged position in an
equity option. As an example, the Exchange requires that each member or
member organization that maintains a position on the same side of the
market in excess of 10,000 contracts in a class of options for its own
account or for the account of a customer report certain information.
This data would include, but not be limited to, whether such position
is hedged and if so, documentation as to how the position is hedged.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Exchange market-makers may be exempt from this reporting
requirement to the extent that market-maker information can be
accessed through the Exchange's market surveillance systems. See
Phlx Rule 1003. The rule also contains general reporting
requirements for customer accounts that maintain a position in
excess of 200 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures and
reporting procedures, in conjunction with the financial requirements
and risk management review procedures already in place at the clearing
firms and the Options Clearing Corporation, should serve to adequately
address any concerns the Commission may have respecting account(s)
engaging in manipulative schemes or assuming too high a level of risk
exposure. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its surveillance and
financial requirements are adequate to effectively monitor the proposed
increase in position limits for IWM Options on a going forward basis.
    The Exchange expects continued options volume growth as
opportunities for investors to participate in options markets increase
and evolve. The Exchange believes that establishing the proposed
expanded position limits for IWM Options, as currently available to
other options exchanges, should allow market participants to more
effectively achieve their investment and hedging objectives.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \10\ in particular, in that it is designed to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities; to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system; and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The proposed rule change would enable the Exchange to have the same
position limits for IWM Options that are already available to other
options exchanges.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\13\ The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change
is based on a similar proposal recently approved by the Commission,\14\
and does not raise any novel issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its 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 fulfilled this requirement.
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57352, supra note
6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the operative delay
to permit the proposed rule change to become operative prior to the
30th day after filing. The Exchange states that waiving the operative
delay will allow the proposed increase in the position and exercise
limits applicable to options on IWM on Phlx to be put into effect
immediately, which will align Phlx's IWM limits with the IWM limits
applicable to members of other options exchanges, thereby promoting
conformity and uniformity in the rules of the several options
exchanges.
    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay of
the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest.\15\ Therefore, the Commission designates the
proposal to be operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has 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 may summarily abrogate the 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.

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 No. SR-Phlx-2008-24 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-Phlx-2008-24. 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 Commissions 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-
Phlx-2008-24 and should be submitted on or before April 28, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-7145 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38820-38825]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13454]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2020-0195; FRL 10010-70-Region 3]

Air Plan Approval; West Virginia; 1997 8-Hour Ozone Standard
Second Maintenance Plan for the West Virginia Portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area Comprising Brooke and Hancock Counties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of West Virginia. This revision pertains to the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection's (WVDEP) plan for maintaining
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for the West Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV area
(Weirton Area), comprising Brooke and Hancock Counties. This action is
being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2020-0195 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 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Becoat, Planning &
Implementation Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. The telephone number is (215) 814-
2036. Mr. Becoat can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 10, 2019, WVDEP submitted a
revision to the West Virginia SIP to incorporate a plan for maintaining
the 1997 ozone NAAQS through June 13, 2027, in accordance with CAA
section 175A.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In its December 10, 2019 submittal, the State consistently
refers to the Weirton Area, rather than referring to the West
Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV area. While the
state's terminology is technically incorrect, it is clear that what
the State refers to as the Weirton Area is identical to the West
Virginia portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV area designated
by EPA pursuant to the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.349.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    In 1979, under section 109 of the CAA, EPA established primary and
secondary NAAQS for ozone at 0.12 parts per million (ppm), averaged
over a 1-hour period. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On July 18, 1997
(62 FR 38856),\2\ EPA revised the primary and secondary NAAQS for ozone
to set the acceptable level of ozone in the ambient air at 0.08 ppm,
averaged over an 8-hour period. EPA set the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on
scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health
effects at lower concentrations and over longer periods of time than
was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone NAAQS was set.
Following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, EPA is required by
the CAA to designate areas throughout the nation as attaining or not
attaining the NAAQS. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), EPA designated
Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio-West Virginia (OH-WV) as nonattainment for
the 1997 8-hr ozone NAAQS. The Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV
nonattainment area consists of Brooke and Hancock Counties, WV and
Jefferson County, OH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In March 2008, EPA completed another review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them further by lowering
the level for both to 0.075 ppm. 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008).
Additionally, in October 2015, EPA completed a review of the primary
and secondary ozone standards and tightened them by lowering the
level for both to 0.70 ppm. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Once a nonattainment area has three years of complete and certified
air quality data that has been determined to attain the NAAQS, and the
area has met the other criteria outlined in CAA section
107(d)(3)(E),\3\ the state can submit a request to EPA to redesignate
the area to attainment. Areas that have been redesignated by EPA from
nonattainment to attainment are referred to as ``maintenance areas.''
One of the criteria for redesignation is to have an approved
maintenance plan under CAA section 175A. The maintenance plan must
demonstrate that the area will continue to maintain the standard for
the period extending 10 years after redesignation, and it must contain
such additional measures as necessary to ensure maintenance as well
contingency measures as necessary to assure that violations of the
standard will be promptly corrected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The requirements of CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) include
attainment of the NAAQS, full approval under section 110(k) of the
applicable SIP, determination that improvement in air quality is a
result of permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions,
demonstration that the state has met all applicable section 110 and
part D requirements, and a fully approved maintenance plan under CAA
section 175A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 14, 2007 (72 FR 27060, effective June 13, 2007), EPA
approved a redesignation request (and maintenance plan) from WVDEP for
the Weirton Area. In accordance with section 175A(b), at the end of the
eighth year after the effective date of the redesignation, the state
must also submit a second maintenance plan to ensure ongoing
maintenance of the standard for an additional 10 years.
    EPA's final implementation rule for the 2008 ozone NAAQS revoked
the 1997 ozone NAAQS and provided that one consequence of revocation
was that areas that had been redesignated to attainment (i.e.,
maintenance areas) for the 1997 NAAQS no longer needed to submit second
10-year maintenance plans under CAA section 175A(b).\4\ However, in
South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA \5\ (South Coast
II), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(D.C. Circuit) vacated EPA's interpretation that, because of the
revocation of the 1997 ozone standard, second maintenance plans were
not required for ``orphan maintenance areas,'' (i.e., areas like Brooke
and Hancock Counties) that had been redesignated to attainment for the
1997 NAAQS and were designated attainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Thus, states with these ``orphan maintenance areas'' under the 1997
ozone NAAQS must submit maintenance plans for the second maintenance
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 80 FR 12315 (March 6, 2015).
    \5\ 882 F.3d 1138 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, CAA section 175A sets forth the criteria
for adequate maintenance plans. In addition, EPA has published
longstanding guidance that provides further insight on the content of
an approvable maintenance plan, explaining that a maintenance plan
should address five elements: (1) An attainment emissions inventory;
(2) a maintenance demonstration; (3) a commitment for continued air
quality monitoring; (4) a process for verification of continued
attainment; and (5) a contingency plan. The Calcagni memo \6\ provides
that states may generally demonstrate maintenance by either performing
air quality modeling to show the future mix of sources and emission
rates will not cause a violation of the NAAQS or by showing that future
emissions of a pollutant and its precursors will not exceed the level
of emissions during a year when the area was attaining the NAAQS (i.e.,
attainment year inventory). See Calcagni memo at 9. EPA further
clarified in three subsequent guidance memos describing ``limited
maintenance plans'' (LMPs) that the requirements of CAA section 175A
could be met by demonstrating that the area's design value was well
below the NAAQS and that the historical stability of the area's air
quality levels showed that the area was unlikely to violate the NAAQS
in the future. Specifically, EPA believes that if the most recent air
quality design value for the area is at a level that is below 85% of
the standard, or in this case below 0.071 ppm, then EPA considers the
state to have met the section 175A requirement for a

demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS for the requisite
period. Accordingly, on December 10, 2019, WVDEP submitted a second
maintenance plan for the Weirton Area, following EPA's LMP guidance and
demonstrating that the area will maintain the 1997 ozone NAAQS through
June 13, 2027, i.e., through the end of the 20-year maintenance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division, September 4, 1992 (Calcagni Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    WVDEP's December 10, 2019 SIP submittal outlines a plan for
continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS which addresses the
criteria set forth in the Calcagni memo as follows.

A. Attainment Emissions Inventory

    A state should develop a comprehensive and accurate inventory of
actual emissions for an attainment year which identifies the level of
emissions in the area which is sufficient to maintain the NAAQS. The
inventory should be developed consistent with EPA's most recent
guidance. For ozone, the inventory should be based on a typical summer
day's emission of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile
organic compounds (VOC), the precursors to ozone formation. In the
first maintenance plan for the Weirton Area, WVDEP used 2004 for the
attainment year inventory, because 2004 was one of the years in the
2002-2004 three-year period when the area first attained the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. The Weirton Area continued to monitor attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in 2014. Therefore, the emissions inventory
from 2014 represents emissions levels conducive to continued attainment
(i.e., maintenance) of the NAAQS. Thus, WVDEP is using 2014 as
representing attainment level emissions for its second maintenance
plan. WVDEP used 2014 summer day emissions from EPA's 2014 version 7.0
modeling platform as the basis for the 2014 inventory presented in
Table 1.

                             Table 1--2014 Typical Summer Day VOC and NOX Emissions
                                                 [Tons/day] \7\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Area                                Source category                VOC             NOX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke County, WV.............................  Fire............................            0.00             0.0
                                                Nonpoint........................           11.47             1.0
                                                Nonroad.........................            0.31             0.3
                                                Onroad..........................            0.43             0.8
                                                Point...........................            0.89             1.8
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Subtotal.....................           13.11             3.9
                                                                                ===============================
Hancock County, WV............................  Fire............................            0.00             0.0
                                                Nonpoint........................            1.61             1.5
                                                Nonroad.........................            0.44             0.3
                                                Onroad..........................            0.54             0.7
                                                Point...........................            0.43             1.1
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Subtotal.....................            3.01             3.6
                                                                                ===============================
Jefferson County, OH..........................  Fire............................            0.00             0.0
                                                Nonpoint........................            2.68             2.0
                                                Nonroad.........................            1.32             0.5
                                                Onroad..........................            1.35             2.4
                                                Point...........................            0.82            34.6
                                                                                -------------------------------
                                                   Subtotal.....................            6.17            39.5
                                                                                ===============================
Steubenville-Weirton Area, OH-WV..............     Totals.......................              22            47.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2014 emissions inventory was prepared by WVDEP and uploaded
into EPA's Emissions Inventory System (EIS) for inclusion in EPA's
National Emission Inventory (NEI). The inventory addresses four
anthropogenic emission source categories: Stationary (point) sources,
stationary nonpoint (area) sources, nonroad mobile, and on-road mobile
sources. Point sources are stationary sources that have the potential
to emit (PTE) more than 100 tons per year (tpy) of VOC, or more than 50
tpy of NOX, and which are required to obtain an operating
permit. Data are collected for each source at a facility and reported
to WVDEP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Data in Table 1 only includes tons/day. See Tables 3 and 4
of WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal for data in tons/year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fire emissions sector includes emissions from agricultural
burning, prescribed fires, wildfires, and other types of fires. The
nonpoint emissions sector includes emissions from equipment,
operations, and activities that are numerous and in total have
significant emissions. Examples include emissions from commercial and
consumer products, portable fuel containers, home heating, repair and
refinishing operations, and crematories. The non-road emissions sector
includes emissions from engines that are not primarily used to propel
transportation equipment, such as generators, forklifts, and marine
pleasure craft. The on-road emissions sector includes emissions from
engines used primarily to propel equipment on highways and other roads,
including passenger vehicles, motorcycles, and heavy-duty diesel
trucks. The point source sector includes large industrial operations
that are relatively few in number but have large emissions, such as
kraft mills, electrical generating units, and pharmaceutical factories.
On-road mobile emissions are modelled by WVDEP using EPA's Motor
Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). WVDEP generates nonroad mobile
source emissions data through the use of EPA's NONROAD2014a model. EPA
reviewed the supporting documentation submitted by WVDEP and proposes
to conclude that the plan's inventory is acceptable for the purposes of
a subsequent maintenance plan under CAA section 175A(b).

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    In order to attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the three-year average of
the fourth-highest daily average ozone concentrations (design value,
DV) at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.08 ppm. Based on
the rounding convention described in 40 CFR part 50, appendix I, the
standard is attained if the DV is 0.084 or below. CAA section 175A
requires a demonstration that the area will continue to maintain the
NAAQS throughout the duration of the requisite maintenance period.
Consistent with the prior guidance documents discussed previously in
this document, EPA believes that if the most recent DV for the area is
well below the NAAQS (e.g. below 85%, or in this case below 0.071 ppm),
the section 175A demonstration requirement has been met, provided that
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, any control
measures already in the SIP, and any Federal measures remain in place
through the end of the second 10-year maintenance period (absent a
showing consistent with section 110(l) that such measures are not
necessary to assure maintenance).
    For the purposes of demonstrating a stable or improving air quality
trend, West Virginia used a weighted design value of the most recent
five design values. The five most recent design values available cover
the 2012-2018 ambient air monitoring data. This includes 3-year design
values for 2012-2014, 2013-2015, 2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018.
Data from 2014, 2015, and 2016 was included in three out of five design
values. Table 2 of this document shows the most recent five years of
ambient ozone air quality 3-year design values. These design values are
from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The 7th column is the 5-year
weighted design value calculated by West Virginia. This 5-year weighted
design value was calculated by averaging all the 4th Max Ozone values
from the years 2012-2018. The 8th column is the 5-year design value
average calculated by EPA. The 5-year design value average is
calculated by averaging the design values for 2012-2014, 2013-2015,
2014-2016, 2015-2017, and 2016-2018. The 5-year weighted design value
calculated by West Virginia is 0.067 ppm, and the 5-year design value
average calculated by EPA is 0.066 ppm, for the Weirton Area, both of
which are below the 0.071 ppm threshold level and 79% of the NAAQS.
Table 2 of this document shows that the most recent five years of
ambient ozone air quality 3-year average DVs for the Weirton Area
continue to be below 85% of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. It demonstrates that
8-hour ozone air quality levels are significantly below the level of
the standard.

                                          Table 2--Weirton Area 8-Hour Ozone Design Values in Part per Million
                                                                          [ppm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                5-Year design
                Site                   2012-2014    2013-2015    2014-2016    2015-2017    2016-2018   5-Year weighted   value average    Projected 2023
                                                                                (ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weirton, WV.........................       0.070        0.067        0.067        0.066        0.065            0.067            0.066            0.060
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 2023 projections shown in Table 2 of this document, EPA
used a 2011-based air quality modeling platform, which includes
emissions, meteorology, and other inputs for 2011 as the base year and
emissions for 2023 as the future analytic year base case. Specifically,
the modeling platform included a variety of data that contained
information pertaining to the modeling domain and simulation period.
These include gridded, hourly emissions estimates and meteorological
data, and boundary concentrations. Separate emissions inventories were
prepared for the 2011 base year and the 2023 base case. All other
inputs (i.e., meteorological fields, initial concentrations, and
boundary concentrations) were specified for the 2011 base year model
application and remained unchanged for the future-year model
simulations. The 2011 modeling platform and projected 2023 emissions
were used to drive the 2011 base year and 2023 future case air quality
model simulations. The 2023 projected DV for the Weirton Area is 0.060
ppm, well below the level of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 0.08 ppm.
Therefore, EPA proposes to determine that future violations of the
NAAQS in this area are unlikely.

C. Continued Air Quality Monitoring and Verification of Continued
Attainment

    Once an area has been redesignated to attainment, the state remains
obligated to maintain an air quality network in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, in order to verify the area's attainment status. In the
December 10, 2019 submittal, West Virginia committed to maintaining an
appropriate air quality monitoring network, in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58. West Virginia will continue to conduct ambient ozone air
quality monitoring in the area throughout the term of the maintenance
plan to verify continued attainment with the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and to protect any applicable PSD increments. WVDEP states that air
quality measurements will be performed in accordance with appropriate
regulations and guidance documents along with EPA quality assurance
requirements, and monitoring procedures will be determined in
accordance with 40 CFR part 58. WVDEP commits to submitting quality-
assured ozone data to EPA through the AQS and ultimately certified by
the WVDEP. EPA has analyzed the commitments in the plan and determined
that they meet the requirements.

D. Contingency Plan

    The contingency plan provisions are designed to promptly correct or
prevent a violation of the NAAQS that might occur after redesignation
of an area to attainment. Section 175A of the CAA requires that a
maintenance plan include such contingency measures as EPA deems
necessary to assure that the state will promptly correct a violation of
the NAAQS that occurs after redesignation. The maintenance plan should
identify the contingency measures to be adopted, a schedule and
procedure for adoption and implementation of the contingency measures,
and a time limit for action by the state. The state should also
identify specific indicators to be used to determine when the
contingency measures need to be adopted and implemented. The
maintenance plan must include a requirement that the state will
implement all pollution control measures that were contained in the SIP
before redesignation of the area to attainment. See section 175A(d) of
the CAA. WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal outlines its adopted
permanent and Federally enforceable control measures in order to
regulate

emission growth. The Weirton Area's control measures include the
permitting regulations and PSD measures, which will remain in effect
through the maintenance plan period. Air permits issued will
incorporate applicable PSD, New Source Performance Standard, and
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant requirements.
    WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal included the required
contingency plan, to be implemented in the event of NAAQS violations in
the future. WVDEP has committed to adopting and implementing one or
more of the following control measures within three months after
verification of a monitored ozone standard violation in the Weirton
Area: (1) Extend the applicability of the VOC reasonably available
control technology (RACT) rule to include source categories previously
excluded (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities); (2) revise permitting
requirements establishing more stringent emissions control measures
and/or emissions offsets; (3) implement NOx RACT requirements if
necessary; (4) develop regulations to establish plant-wide emission
caps; (5) implement Stage II Vapor Recovery regulations; (6) establish
a program focusing on increasing the public's understanding of air
quality issues and increasing support for actions to improve the air
quality; and (7) initiate voluntary local control measures (e.g.,
bicycle/pedestrian measures, engine idling reduction, partnership with
ground freight industry, increase compliance with open burning
restrictions, and school bus engine retrofit program).
    If there is indeed a violation and the DV exceeds the NAAQS, the
contingency plan will be ``triggered,'' based on the following
schedule: (1) Quality assurance procedures must confirm the monitored
violation within 45 days of occurrence; (2) a draft rule would be
developed by the WVDEP for any regulation chosen, (3) WVDEP will adopt
the selected control measure(s) as emergency rule(s) which will be
implemented within six months after adoption and will file the rule(s)
as legislative rule(s) for permanent authorization by the legislature;
and (4) for each voluntary measure selected, the WVDEP will initiate
program development with local governments within the area by the start
of the following ozone season.
    Furthermore, if the triennial inventories indicate emissions growth
in excess of 10% of the 2011 base-year inventory or if a monitored
ozone air quality exceedance pattern indicates that an ozone NAAQS
violation may be imminent, WVDEP will evaluate existing control
measures to ascertain if additional regulatory revisions are necessary
to maintain the ozone standards.
    EPA finds that West Virginia's contingency measures, as well as the
commitment to continue implementing any SIP requirements, satisfy the
pertinent requirements of section 175A. Importantly, while EPA notes
that West Virginia's contingency measures option six (increasing public
understanding) and seven (voluntary local control measures), are not
enforceable measures that standing alone are likely to lead to
reductions in emissions that could promptly correct a violation of the
NAAQS, their inclusion among other measures that meet that criterion,
is overall SIP-strengthening, and their inclusion does not alter EPA's
proposal to find the LMP is fully approvable.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(1)(B)). EPA's
conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93 requires that transportation plans,
programs and projects conform to SIPs and establish the criteria and
procedures for determining whether or not they conform. The conformity
rule generally requires a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emissions budget
(MVEB) contained in the control strategy SIP revision or maintenance
plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and 93.124). An MVEB is defined as ``that
portion of the total allowable emissions defined in the submitted or
approved control strategy implementation plan revision or maintenance
plan for a certain date for the purpose of meeting reasonable further
progress milestones or demonstrating attainment or maintenance of the
NAAQS, for any criteria pollutant or its precursors, allocated to
highway and transit vehicle use and emissions (40 CFR 93.101).''
    Under the conformity rule, LMP areas may demonstrate conformity
without a regional emission analysis (40 CFR 93.109(e)). However,
because LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations still will be required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and transportation projects still will have
to demonstrate that they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108), meet
the criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). Additionally, conformity determinations for
RTPs and TIPs must be determined no less frequently than every four
years, and conformity of plan and TIP amendments and transportation
projects is demonstrated in accordance with the timing requirements
specified in 40 CFR 93.104. In addition, for projects to be approved
they must come from a currently conforming RTP and TIP (40 CFR 93.114
and 93.115). The Weirton Area remains under the obligation to meet the
applicable conformity requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of WVDEP's December 10, 2019 submittal indicates it
meets CAA section 175A and all applicable CAA requirements. EPA is
proposing to approve the LMP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the
Weirton Area (comprising Brooke and Hancock Counties), as a revision to
the West Virginia SIP. EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues
discussed in this document. These comments will be considered before
taking final action.

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 proposed 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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 proposed rule, pertaining to West Virginia's
second maintenance plan for Brooke and Hancock Counties, 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 16, 2020.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2020-13454 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6066-6067]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RD14-12-000]

Proposed Agency Information Collection

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting the FERC-725D information
collection in Docket No. RD14-12-000 to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any
interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should
address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below.
The Commission issued a Notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 68426,
11/17/2014) requesting public comments. FERC received no comments in
response to that notice and is making the notation in its submission to
OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by March 6,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB should be sent via email to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer and should
be identified by FERC-725D (OMB Control Number 1902-0247), The OMB Desk
Officer may also be reached via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. RD14-12-000, by
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collection changes in Docket
No. RD14-12-000 relate to the Reliability Standards FAC-001-2 (Facility
Interconnection Requirements) and FAC-002-2 (Facility Interconnection
Studies), developed by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC), and submitted to the Commission for approval. The
Commission received NERC's petition to approve the proposed Reliability
Standards on August 22, 2014.
    NERC summarizes the FAC group of standards as follows:

    The Facility Design, Connections, and Maintenance (``FAC'')
Reliability Standards address topics such as facility
interconnection requirements, facility ratings, system operating
limits, and transfer capabilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NERC Petition at 3.

    In its petition, NERC also summarizes the proposed Reliability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standards' applicability and requirements:

    Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-001-2 requires that
Transmission Owners and applicable Generator Owners document and
make Facility interconnection requirements available so that
entities seeking to interconnect have the necessary information.
Proposed Reliability Standard FAC-002-2 ensures that the reliability
impact of interconnecting new or materially modified Facilities is
studied. Collectively, proposed Reliability Standards FAC-001-2 and
FAC-002-2 ensure that there is appropriate coordination and
communication regarding the interconnection of Facilities, which
improves the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, NERC also states that the proposed Reliability Standards
improve reliability, clarify requirement language

and eliminate redundant or unnecessary requirements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden Statement: Commission staff analyzed the proposed and
currently enforced Reliability Standards and has concluded that
proposed Reliability Standards merely clarify or eliminate redundancies
and thus, the information collection requirements have not changed.
Accordingly, the net overall burden and respondent universe \4\ remain
unchanged, when compared to the burden of the existing standards being
replaced.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The affected entities for FAC-001-2 are Transmission Owners
(TO) and applicable Generator Owners (GO). The affected entities for
FAC-002-2 are Transmission Planners (TP), Planning Coordinators
(PC), Generator Owners (GO), Transmission Owners (TO), Distribution
Providers (DP), and Load-Serving Entities (LSE). Note that Planning
Coordinator (PC) is the new name for Planning Authority--a term
still used in NERC's Compliance Registry.
    \5\ The burden for the preceding versions of the standards being
replaced was included in: (a) FERC-725M (OMB Control No. 1902-0263)
for FAC-001-1, and (b) FERC-725A (OMB Control No. 1902-0244) for
FAC-002-1. The corresponding burden will be transferred from FERC-
725M and FERC-725A to FERC-725D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission intends to submit a request for approval to OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) related to the proposed
Reliability Standards. For PRA purposes, the information collection
requirements in proposed Reliability Standards FAC-001-2 and FAC-002-2
are identified as FERC-725D and OMB Control Number 1902-0247.
    The annual reporting burden for the implementation of Reliability
Standards FAC-001-2 and FAC-002-2 is estimated as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The number of respondents is based on the NERC Compliance
Registry as of September 24, 2014. Although 2,163 entities are
registered as TO, DP, LSE, or GO, we expect at the most 216 entities
(ten percent) will seek to interconnect and go through the study
phase that may require coordination in any given year.
    \7\ The estimates for cost per hour are derived as follows:
     $72.92/hour, the average of the salary plus
benefits for a manager ($84.96/hour) and an electrical engineer
($60.87/hour), from Bureau of Labor and Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm, as of 9/4/2014
     $29.01/hour, based on a Commission staff study of
record retention burden cost.

                                                           FERC-725D, modifications in RD14-12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number
                                                 Number and type of        of  responses   Total number   Average burden   Total annual    Total annual
                                                   respondent \6\               per        of responses    per response   burden (hours)     cost \7\
                                                                            respondent                        (hours)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            (1).........................             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)             ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FAC-001-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation & updates...................  GO 5........................               1               5              16              80       $5,833.60
                                            TO 332......................               1             332              16           5,312      387,351.04
Record Retention..........................  GO 5........................               1               5               1               5          145.05
                                            TO 332......................               1             332               1             332        9,631.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        FAC-002-2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study.....................................  PC, TP 183..................               1             183              32           5,856      427,019.52
Record Retention..........................  PC, TP 183..................               1             183               1             183        5,308.83
Coordination..............................  TO, DP, LSE, GO 216.........               1             216              16            3456      252,011.52
Record Retention..........................  TO, DP, LSE, GO 216.........               1             216               1             216        6,266.16
                                                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ............................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............    1,093,567.04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: January 28, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-02112 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14055-14056]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05410]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0229]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to
award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare pediatric disease
product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined
that VIMIZIM (elosulfase alfa), manufactured by BioMarin
Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicki Moyer, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6467, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-2200, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority
review voucher to the sponsor of a rare pediatric disease product
application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360ff), added
by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of rare
pediatric disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA
has determined that VIMIZIM (elosulfase alfa), manufactured by BioMarin
Pharmaceutical, Inc., meets the criteria for a priority review

voucher. VIMIZIM (elosulfase alfa) is indicated for the treatment of
Mucopolysaccharidosis Type IV A (Morquio A syndrome). Morquio A
syndrome is a rare congenital disorder caused by the absence or
malfunctioning of an enzyme involved in an important metabolic pathway,
leading to problems with bone development, growth, and movement.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm.
    For further information about VIMIZIM (elosulfase alfa), go to the
Drugs@FDA Web site at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-05410 Filed 3-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P