[Federal Register: August 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 147)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41970-41975]
[DOCID:fr01au07-29]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401; FRL-8448-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; State Implementation Plan Revision To Implement the
Clean Air Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the Massachusetts
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on March 30, 2007. This
revision addresses the requirements of EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR), promulgated on May 12, 2005 and subsequently revised on April
28, 2006 and December 13, 2006. EPA is proposing to determine that the
SIP revision fully implements the CAIR requirements for Massachusetts.
Therefore, as a consequence of the SIP approval, EPA will also withdraw
the CAIR Federal Implementation Plan (CAIR FIP) concerning
NOX ozone-season emissions for Massachusetts. The CAIR FIPs
for all States in the CAIR region were promulgated on April 28, 2006
and subsequently revised on December 13, 2006.
    In the SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve, Massachusetts
would meet CAIR requirements by participating in the EPA-administered
cap-and-trade program addressing NOX ozone-season emissions.
Massachusetts's SIP revision is based on EPA's model CAIR
NOX ozone season rule and is in most respects substantively
identical to that model rule. The Massachusetts CAIR program has two
major substantive differences from that model rule (expanded
applicability, and a different methodology for allocating
NOX allowances), both of which are consistent with the
flexibility allowed under CAIR for state participation in the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade program. The SIP revision complies with the
statutory and regulatory requirements for approval of a CAIR
NOX ozone-season program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-
R01-OAR-2007-0401, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401'', Anne Arnold,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``FDMS Docket
ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2007-0401''. 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
through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to

be CBI or otherwise protected. The http://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 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 and any form of encryption and should 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 electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. In addition to publicly
available docket materials available electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov, the hard copy of these materials, including the

state submittal and EPA's technical support document, is available at
the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite
1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning
today's proposal, please contact Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023,
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
III. What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?
IV. What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?
V. Analysis of Massachusetts's CAIR SIP Submittal
    A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations
    B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs
    C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NOX SIP Call
Sources
    D. NOX Allowance Allocations
    E. Individual Opt-in Units
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?

    EPA is proposing to approve a revision to Massachusetts's SIP,
submitted on March 30, 2007. This SIP revision includes a new
regulation, 310 CMR 7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule,''
and amendments to existing regulation 310 CMR 7.28, ``NOX
Allowance Trading Program.'' In its SIP revision, Massachusetts would
meet CAIR requirements by requiring certain electric generating units
(EGUs) to participate in the EPA-administered State CAIR cap-and-trade
program addressing NOX ozone-season emissions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the Massachusetts SIP as revised will meet
the applicable requirements of CAIR. Any final action approving the SIP
will be taken by the Regional Administrator for Region 1. As a
consequence of the SIP Approval, the Administrator of EPA will also
issue a final rule to withdraw the FIP concerning NOX ozone-
season emissions for Massachusetts. This action will delete and reserve
40 CFR 52.1140. The withdrawal of the CAIR FIP for Massachusetts is a
conforming amendment that must be made once the SIP is approved because
EPA's authority to issue the FIP was premised on a deficiency in the
SIP for Massachusetts. Once the SIP is fully approved, EPA no longer
has authority for the FIP. Thus, EPA will not have the option of
maintaining the FIP following the full SIP approval. Accordingly, EPA
does not intend to offer an opportunity for a public hearing or an
additional opportunity for written public comment on the withdrawal of
the FIP.

II. What Is the Regulatory History of the CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) was published by EPA on May
12, 2005 (70 FR 25162). In this rule, EPA determined that 28 States and
the District of Columbia contribute significantly to nonattainment and
interfere with maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour
ozone in downwind States in the eastern part of the country. As a
result, EPA required those upwind States to revise their SIPs to
include control measures that reduce emissions of SO2, which
is a precursor to PM2.5 formation, and/or NOX,
which is a precursor to both ozone and PM2.5 formation. For
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to downwind PM2.5
nonattainment, CAIR sets annual State-wide emission reduction
requirements (i.e., budgets) for SO2 and annual State-wide
emission reduction requirements for NOX. Similarly, for
jurisdictions that contribute significantly to 8-hour ozone
nonattainment, CAIR sets State-wide emission reduction requirements for
NOX for the ozone season (May 1st to September 30th). Under
CAIR, States may implement these reduction requirements by
participating in the EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs or by
adopting any other control measures.
    CAIR explains to subject States what must be included in SIPs to
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) with regard to interstate transport with respect to the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA made national findings, effective
on May 25, 2005, that the States had failed to submit SIPs meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D). The SIPs were due in July 2000, 3
years after the promulgation of the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. These findings started a 2-year clock for EPA to promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D). Under CAA section 110(c)(1), EPA may issue a FIP
anytime after such findings are made and must do so within two years
unless a SIP revision correcting the deficiency is approved by EPA
before the FIP is promulgated.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA promulgated FIPs for all States covered by
CAIR in order to ensure the emissions reductions required by CAIR are
achieved on schedule. Each CAIR State is subject to the FIPs until the
State fully adopts, and EPA approves, a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of CAIR. The CAIR FIPs require EGUs to participate in the
EPA-administered CAIR SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs, as appropriate. The CAIR
FIP SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone
season trading programs impose essentially the same requirements as,
and are integrated with, the respective CAIR SIP trading programs. The
integration of the FIP and SIP trading programs means that these
trading programs will work together to create effectively a single
trading program for each regulated pollutant (SO2,
NOX annual, and NOX ozone season) in all States
covered by the CAIR FIP or SIP trading program for that pollutant. The
CAIR FIPs also allow States to submit abbreviated SIP revisions that,
if approved by EPA, will automatically replace or supplement certain
CAIR FIP provisions (e.g., the methodology for allocating
NOX allowances to sources in the State), while the CAIR FIP
remains in place for all other provisions.
    On April 28, 2006, EPA published two additional CAIR-related final
rules that added the States of Delaware and New Jersey to the list of
States subject to CAIR for PM2.5 and announced EPA's final
decisions on reconsideration of five issues, without making any
substantive changes to the CAIR requirements.

III. What are the General Requirements of CAIR and the CAIR FIPs?

    CAIR establishes State-wide emission budgets for SO2 and
NOX and is to be implemented in two phases. The first phase
of NOX reductions starts in 2009 and continues through 2014,
while the first phase of SO2 reductions starts in 2010 and
continues through 2014. The second phase of reductions for both
NOX and SO2 starts in 2015 and continues
thereafter. CAIR requires States to implement the budgets by either:
    (1) Requiring EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered cap-and-
trade programs; or
    (2) adopting other control measures of the State's choosing and
demonstrating that such control measures will result in compliance with
the applicable State SO2 and NOX budgets.
    The May 12, 2005 and April 28, 2006 CAIR rules provide model rules
that States must adopt (with certain limited changes, if desired) if
they want to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs.
    With two exceptions, only States that choose to meet the
requirements of CAIR through methods that exclusively regulate EGUs are
allowed to participate in the EPA-administered trading programs. One
exception is for States that adopt the opt-in provisions of the model
rules to allow non-EGUs individually to opt into the EPA-administered
trading programs. The other exception is for States that include all
non-EGUs from their NOX SIP Call trading programs in their
CAIR NOX ozone season trading programs.

IV. What are the Types of CAIR SIP Submittals?

    States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures
they will use to meet the requirements of CAIR. EPA anticipates that
most States will choose to meet the CAIR requirements by selecting an
option that requires EGUs to participate in the EPA-administered CAIR
cap-and-trade programs. For such States, EPA has provided two
approaches for submitting and obtaining approval for CAIR SIP
revisions. States may submit full SIP revisions that adopt the model
CAIR cap-and-trade rules. If approved, these

SIP revisions will fully replace the CAIR FIPs. Alternatively, States
may submit abbreviated SIP revisions. These SIP revisions will not
replace the CAIR FIPs; however, the CAIR FIPs provide that, when
approved, the provisions in these abbreviated SIP revisions will be
used instead of or in conjunction with, as appropriate, the
corresponding provisions of the CAIR FIPs (e.g., the NOX
allowance allocation methodology).
    A State submitting a full SIP revision may either adopt regulations
that are substantively identical to the model rules or incorporate by
reference the model rules. CAIR provides that States may only make
limited changes to the model rules if the States want to participate in
the EPA-administered trading programs. A full SIP revision may change
the model rules only by altering their applicability and allowance
allocation provisions to:
    1. Include NOX SIP Call trading sources that are not
EGUs under CAIR in the CAIR NOX ozone season trading
program;
    2. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual or ozone
season allowances using a methodology chosen by the State;
    3. Provide for State allocation of NOX annual allowances
from the compliance supplement pool (CSP) using the State's choice of
allowed, alternative methodologies; or
    4. Allow units that are not otherwise CAIR units to opt
individually into the CAIR SO2, NOX annual, or
NOX ozone season trading programs under the opt-in
provisions in the model rules.

An approved CAIR full SIP revision addressing EGUs' SO2,
NOX annual, or NOX ozone season emissions will
replace the CAIR FIP for that State for the respective EGU emissions.

V. Analysis of Massachusetts's CAIR SIP Submittal

    A summary of EPA's review of Massachusetts's CAIR program is given
below. Additional details regarding requirements of Massachusetts's 310
CMR 7.32 regulation and EPA's evaluation of this regulation are
detailed in a memorandum dated July 16, 2007, entitled ``Technical
Support Document (TSD) for revisions to the Massachusetts SIP: 310 CMR
7.32 (``Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule'').'' The TSD and
Massachusetts's CAIR SIP submittal are available in the docket
supporting this action.

A. State Budgets for Allowance Allocations

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone season budgets were
developed from historical heat input data for EGUs. Using these data,
EPA calculated annual and ozone season regional heat input values,
which were multiplied by 0.15 pounds per million British thermal units
(lb/mmBtu), for phase 1 of the CAIR program (2009-2014) and by 0.125
lb/mmBtu, for phase 2 of the CAIR program (2015 and thereafter) to
obtain regional NOX budgets for 2009-2014 and for 2015 and
thereafter, respectively. EPA derived the State NOX annual
and ozone season budgets from the regional budgets using State heat
input data adjusted by fuel factors. Massachusetts, however, is only
required to participate in the CAIR NOX ozone-season
program, not the CAIR NOX annual or SO2 trading
programs. Therefore, only CAIR NOX ozone-season budgets
apply to the Massachusetts CAIR program.
    In today's action, EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts's SIP
revision at 310 CMR 7.32. This SIP revision adopts the budgets
established for the State in CAIR, i.e., 7,551 tons of NOX
ozone-season emissions for CAIR phase 1 and 6,293 tons for CAIR phase
2, plus an additional 363 tons of NOX ozone-season emissions
for both phases 1 and 2 to account for NOX emissions from
``non-EGU'' units from the Massachusetts NOX SIP Call
trading program (see section V.B. below). The total NOX
ozone-season budget is therefore 7,914 tons of NOX ozone-
season emissions for CAIR phase 1 and 6,656 tons for CAIR phase 2.
Massachusetts's SIP revision sets this budget as the total number of
allowances (with each allowance authorizing one ton of NOX
ozone-season emissions) available for allocation for each year under
the EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade program.

B. CAIR Cap-and-Trade Programs

    The CAIR NOX annual and ozone-season model trading rules
both largely mirror the structure of the NOX SIP Call model
trading rule in 40 CFR part 96, subparts A through I. While the
provisions of the NOX annual and ozone-season model rules
are similar, there are some differences. For example, the
NOX ozone season model rule reflects the fact that the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program replaces the NOX
SIP Call trading program after the 2008 ozone season and is coordinated
with the NOX SIP Call program. The NOX ozone
season model rule provides incentives for early emissions reductions by
allowing banked, pre-2009 NOX SIP Call allowances to be used
for compliance in the CAIR NOX ozone-season trading program.
In addition, States have the option of continuing to meet their
NOX SIP Call requirement by participating in the CAIR
NOX ozone season trading program and including all their
NOX SIP Call trading sources in that program. Massachusetts
has decided to exercise the option of including all its NOX
SIP Call units in its State CAIR program. Therefore, the Massachusetts
CAIR SIP revision includes amendments to the Massachusetts
NOX SIP Call trading program (310 CMR 7.28) such that the
NOX SIP Call trading program applies for the control periods
from 2003 through 2008, but is then superseded by the Massachusetts
CAIR program (310 CMR 7.32) beginning with the control period in 2009.
    EPA also used the CAIR model trading rules as the basis for the
trading programs in the CAIR FIPs. The CAIR FIP trading rules are
virtually identical to the CAIR model trading rules, with changes made
to account for federal rather than state implementation. The CAIR model
SO2, NOX annual, and NOX ozone season
trading rules and the respective CAIR FIP trading rules are designed to
work together as integrated SO2, NOX annual, and
NOX ozone season trading programs.
    In the SIP revision, Massachusetts chooses to implement its CAIR
budgets by requiring EGUs (as well as ``non-EGUs'' from its
NOX SIP Call trading program, as discussed below) to
participate in EPA-administered cap-and-trade programs for
NOX ozone-season emissions. Massachusetts has adopted a full
SIP revision that adopts, with certain allowed changes discussed below,
the CAIR model cap-and-trade rules for NOX ozone-season
emissions.

C. Applicability Provisions for non-EGU NOX SIP Call Sources

    In general, the CAIR model trading rules apply to any stationary,
fossil-fuel-fired boiler or stationary, fossil-fuel-fired combustion
turbine serving at any time, since the later of November 15, 1990 or
the start-up of the unit's combustion chamber, a generator with
nameplate capacity of more than 25 MWe producing electricity for sale.
    States have the option of bringing in, for the CAIR NOX
ozone season program only, those units in the State's NOX
SIP Call trading program that are not EGUs as defined under CAIR
(herein called ``non-EGUs''). EPA advises States exercising this option
to add the applicability provisions in the State's NOX SIP
Call trading rule for ``non-EGUs'' to the applicability provisions in
40 CFR 96.304 in order to include in the CAIR NOX ozone
season trading program all units required to be in the

State's NOX SIP Call trading program that are not already
included under 40 CFR 96.304. Under this option, the CAIR
NOX ozone-season program must cover all large industrial
boilers and combustion turbines, as well as any small EGUs (i.e. units
serving a generator with a nameplate capacity of 25 MWe or less) that
the State currently requires to be in the NOX SIP Call
trading program.
    Massachusetts has chosen to expand the applicability provisions of
the CAIR NOX ozone season trading program to include all
units in the State's NOX SIP Call trading program. Units in
the Massachusetts NOX SIP Call trading program include units
that burn more than 50-percent fossil fuel and that have a maximum
heat-input capacity of 250 million British thermal units (MMBtu) or
more, or serve a generator with a nameplate capacity of 15 MWe or more.
These units are included in the Massachusetts NOX SIP Call
trading program whether or not they produce electricity for sale, and,
as noted above, will be included in the Massachusetts CAIR program
beginning with the control period in 2009.
    EPA has determined that Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.32 includes the
allowable CAIR applicability provisions relating to adding all
NOX SIP Call trading program units to the Massachusetts CAIR
NOX ozone season program.

D. NOX Allowance Allocations

    Deadlines: There is one technical flaw in the SIP revision, but EPA
is proposing to approve the SIP revision despite this flaw. CAIR
requires states to submit to EPA the initial allocations for EGUs that
started operation before 2001 by October 31, 2006. Massachusetts's
proposed SIP revision does not meet this requirement, nor did the state
submit those allocations by this date. However, the purpose of this
date was to allow EPA sufficient time to process the allocations data.
EPA now has the allocations, and no outside party was prejudiced by
Massachusetts's failure to meet this date. The TSD associated with this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking explains this issue and EPA's rationale
for proposing to approve the SIP revision despite this technical flaw.
    NOX allowance-allocation methodology: Under the
NOX allowance-allocation methodology in the CAIR model
trading rules and in the CAIR FIP, NOX annual and ozone-
season allowances are allocated to units that have operated for five
years (i.e., ``existing units''), based on heat input data from a
three-year period that are adjusted for fuel type by using fuel factors
of 1.0 for coal, 0.6 for oil, and 0.4 for other fuels. The CAIR model
trading rules and the CAIR FIP also provide a new unit set-aside from
which units without five years of operation are allocated allowances
based on the units' prior year emissions.
    States may establish in their SIP submissions a different
NOX allowance-allocation methodology that will be used to
allocate allowances to sources in the States if certain requirements
are met concerning the timing of submission of units' allocations to
the Administrator for recordation and the total amount of allowances
allocated for each control period. In adopting alternative
NOX allowance-allocation methodologies, States have
flexibility with regard to:
    1. The cost to recipients of the allowances, which may be
distributed for free or auctioned;
    2. The frequency of allocations;
    3. The basis for allocating allowances, which may be distributed,
for example, based on historical heat input or electric and thermal
output; and
    4. The use of allowance set-asides and, if used, their size.
    Massachusetts has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance
allocations with its own methodology. Massachusetts's 310 CMR 7.32
distributes NOX ozone-season allowances based upon
historical electric and thermal output, rather than heat input.
Massachusetts also provides a percentage of allowances for Public
Benefit and new unit set-asides.
(1) What Types of Set-Asides are Included in Massachusetts CAIR?
    Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.32 includes both a Public Benefit set-aside
(PBSA) to encourage Energy Efficiency Projects (EEPs) and Renewable
Energy Projects (REPs), and a new unit set-aside to allow for addition
of new units. Both of these types of set-asides were included in the
State's NOX SIP Call trading program.
    Massachusetts has set a new unit set-aside at 5 percent of the
State's CAIR budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the
new unit set-aside includes 396 CAIR NOX ozone-season
allowances during CAIR phase 1 (2009-2014), and 333 allowances during
CAIR phase 2 (2015 and thereafter).
    Massachusetts has set a PBSA at 10 percent of the State's CAIR
budget for both phases of the CAIR program. Therefore, the PBSA
includes 791 CAIR NOX ozone-season allowances during CAIR
phase 1 (2009-2014), and 666 allowances during CAIR phase 2 (2015 and
thereafter).
(2) Banking and Transferring of Set-Asides
    The Massachusetts CAIR SIP establishes an account for any
unallocated PBSA or new unit set-aside allowances so that these can be
allocated in future years. This is similar to the account established
under the State's NOX SIP Call trading program. If the
number of banked set-aside allowances is 10 percent or more of the
total Massachusetts CAIR budget after allocations and compliance
deductions have been made for a given year, the State will allocate
allowances that exceed 5 percent of the State's CAIR budget to existing
CAIR NOX ozone-season units using the allocation methodology
described below.
    If Massachusetts approves the allocation of more allowances for
EEPs and REPs than are available in the PBSA, Massachusetts will allow
transfer of unallocated allowances from the new unit set-aside to the
PBSA. However, allowances may not be transferred from the PBSA to the
new unit set-aside.
(3) Methodology for Allocating CAIR Allowances
    Massachusetts has chosen to replace the provisions of the CAIR
NOX ozone-season model trading rule concerning allowance
allocations with a methodology similar to that used in the
Massachusetts NOX SIP Call trading program. This
methodology, which is based on energy output, allocates allowances to
existing units and, to the extent possible, to new units based on their
steam and/or electricity output. More details on Massachusetts's
methodology for allocating CAIR allowances can be found in the TSD
associated with this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
(4) Massachusetts CAIR Permits and Reporting Requirements
    The Massachusetts CAIR SIP includes most of the permitting
provisions of the CAIR model rule. Massachusetts, however, has modified
the rule as it applies to collection of output data and also requires
all Massachusetts CAIR units to have Massachusetts CAIR permits.
    Under the CAIR model rule, facilities that are subject to the Acid
Rain Program or the CAIR NOX and SO2 annual
trading programs must report emissions data year-round, but facilities
that are only subject to the NOX ozone-season trading
program need only submit NOX emission data to the State
during the ozone season. As noted above, Massachusetts is only required
to participate in the CAIR NOX ozone-

season program. However, under Massachusetts's CAIR NOX
ozone season allowance trading program, all units recording
NOX emissions data with Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) are required to submit quarterly data emission reports
year-round.
    Because of the importance to Massachusetts of obtaining emissions
data for air-quality planning efforts related to EPA's programs to
address Regional Haze and Particulate Matter (PM), which are both year-
round air-quality issues, Massachusetts has decided to require that all
of the State's CAIR units with CEMS report NOX emissions to
the State on a year-round basis. Massachusetts will not require units
without CEMS to report emissions on a year-round basis. EPA has
determined that these modifications of the CAIR NOX ozone-
season trading rule in regard to collection of output data and CAIR
permits are acceptable.

E. Individual Opt-in Units

    The opt-in provisions of the CAIR SIP model trading rules allow
certain non-EGUs (i.e., boilers, combustion turbines, and other
stationary fossil-fuel-fired devices) that do not meet the
applicability criteria for a CAIR trading program to participate
voluntarily in (i.e., opt into) the CAIR trading program. A non-EGU may
opt into one or more of the CAIR trading programs. In order to qualify
to opt into a CAIR trading program, a unit must vent all emissions
through a stack and be able to meet monitoring, recordkeeping, and
recording requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The owners and operators
seeking to opt a unit into a CAIR trading program must apply for a CAIR
opt-in permit. If the unit is issued a CAIR opt-in permit, the unit
becomes a CAIR unit, is allocated allowances, and must meet the same
allowance-holding and emissions monitoring and reporting requirements
as other units subject to the CAIR trading program. The opt-in
provisions provide for two methodologies for allocating allowances for
opt-in units, one methodology that applies to opt-in units in general
and a second methodology that allocates allowances only to opt-in units
that the owners and operators intend to repower before January 1, 2015.
    States have several options concerning the opt-in provisions.
States may adopt the CAIR opt-in provisions entirely or may adopt them
but exclude one of the methodologies for allocating allowances. States
may also decline to adopt the opt-in provisions at all.
    The Massachusetts CAIR SIP does not include opt-in provisions
because the State has chosen to allocate CAIR allowances using an
energy-output methodology that cannot be used for opt-in sources under
the model CAIR NOX ozone-season trading rule. The
Massachusetts NOX SIP Call trading program (310 CMR 7.28),
however, does allow for opt-in sources (although no sources have opted
into this program to date). Therefore, sources that wish to be part of
the Massachusetts CAIR program can take advantage of the opt-in
provisions of the State's NOX SIP Call program until the end
of 2008.
    Beginning with the 2009 ozone season, the NOX SIP Call
program will be replaced by the State's CAIR Program, and no further
opt-in units will be allowed.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Massachusetts's full CAIR SIP revision
submitted on March 30, 2007, including regulations 310 CMR 7.32
(``Massachusetts CAIR'') and amendments to 310 CMR 7.28
(``NOX Allocation Trading Program''). Under this SIP
revision, Massachusetts is choosing to participate in the EPA-
administered cap-and-trade program for NOX ozone-season
emissions. The SIP revision meets the applicable requirements in 40 CFR
51.123(aa) with regard to NOX ozone-season emissions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the SIP as revised will meet the
requirements of CAIR. As a consequence of the SIP approval, the
Administrator of EPA will also issue, without providing an opportunity
for a public hearing or an additional opportunity for written public
comment, a final rule to withdraw the CAIR FIP concerning
NOX ozone-season emissions for Massachusetts. This action
will delete and reserve 40 CFR section 52.1140 in Part 52.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely proposes to approve State law as meeting Federal requirements
and would impose no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this action proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State law and would not impose any additional
enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it 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).
    This proposal also does not have tribal implications because it
would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it would not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
action merely proposes to approve a State rule implementing a Federal
standard and will result, as a consequence of that approval, in the
Administrator's withdrawal of the CAIR FIP. It does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it would approve a State rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act.
    Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
This proposed rule would not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: July 24, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
 [FR Doc. E7-14887 Filed 7-31-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68469-68471]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22088]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0403; FRL-11259-02-R7]

Air Plan Approval; MO; Control of Emissions From Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve revisions to the Missouri State Implementation Plan
(SIP) related to the control of emissions from volatile organic liquid
storage. These revisions do not impact the stringency of the SIP or
have an adverse effect on air quality. The EPA's approval of this rule
revision is being done in accordance with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0403. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.govwebsite. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available through www.regulations.gov or
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Olson, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Planning Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913)
551-7905; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is the EPA taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is approving revisions to the Missouri SIP received on
February 15, 2019, and June 10, 2021, and a supplemental submission on
April 24, 2023. The revisions are to Title 10, Division 10 of the Code
of State Regulations (CSR), 10 CSR 10-5.500 ``Control of Emissions from
Volatile Organic Liquid Storage.'' The purpose of the state regulation
is to limit the volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
installations with volatile organic liquid storage vessels in the St.
Louis 1997 eight (8)-hour ozone nonattainment area by incorporating
reasonably available control technology (RACT) as required by the Clean
Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. Missouri made multiple revisions to
the rule. The revisions add incorporations by reference to other state
rules, add definitions specific to the rule, revise unnecessarily
restrictive or duplicative language, and make administrative wording
changes. EPA finds that these revisions meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, do not impact the stringency of the SIP, and do not
adversely impact air quality. The full text of the rule revisions as
well as EPA's analysis of the revisions can be found in the technical
support document (TSD) included in the docket for this action.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State's submission has met the public notice requirements for
SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on the first SIP revision from June 15,
2018, to September 6, 2018, and held a public hearing on August 30,
2018. Missouri received ten comments from two sources during the
comment period on 10 CSR 10-5.500. The EPA provided nine comments.
Missouri responded to all comments and revised the rule based on public
comments prior to submitting to EPA, as noted in the State submission
included in the docket for this action. The State provided public
notice on the second SIP revision from November 15, 2019, to February
6, 2020, and held a public hearing on January 30, 2018. Missouri
received one comment from a staff member during the comment period. The
State revised the rule purpose statement based on the comment prior to
submitting to EPA.
    The EPA's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and supporting information
contained in the docket were made available for public comment from
August 22, 2023, to September 21, 2023. The EPA received no comments.
In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical
support

document (TSD) which is part of this document, the revision meets the
substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and
implementing regulations.

III. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is taking final action to amend the Missouri SIP by
approving the State's request in submissions dated February 15, 2019,
and June 10, 2021, and a supplemental submission on April 24, 2023, to
revise 10 CSR 10-5.500 ``Control of Emissions from Volatile Organic
Liquid Storage.''

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-5.500, with a state effective date of July 30,
2020, which regulates emissions from volatile organic liquid storage.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 7 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).
    Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for
inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968, May 22, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. 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 Clean Air Act
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 Clean Air Act.
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 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); and
     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;
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the 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).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The Missouri Department of Natural Resources did not evaluate
environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the
CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor
require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did
not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive
impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is
not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2023. 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. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 29, 2023.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.9.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as set forth below:

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.

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-5.500'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State
     Missouri citation              Title          effective date    EPA approval date          Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Chapter 5--Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-5.500..................  Control of Emissions        7/30/2020  10/4/2023, [insert     Section (2)(N)4 is not
                             From Volatile                          Federal Register       SIP-approved. Section
                             Organic Liquid                         citation].             (5)(F) retains a
                             Storage.                                                      previously approved
                                                                                version of the state
                                                                                rule text.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-22088 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43985-43987]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15837]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 141 / Monday, July 25, 2022 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0731; Special Conditions No. 25-826-SC]

Special Conditions: StandardAero Business Aviation Services, LLC,
Textron Aviation Inc. Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/
800XP Airplanes; Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems

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

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Textron Aviation
Inc., (Textron) Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/800XP
airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by StandardAero Business
Aviation Services, LLC, will have a novel or unusual design feature
when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design
feature is a rechargeable lithium ion battery contained in the Standby
Attitude Module (SAM). The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on StandardAero Business Aviation
Services, LLC on July 25, 2022. Send comments on or before September 8,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2022-0731 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as
described in the following paragraph, and other information as
described in title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 11.35, the
FAA will post all comments received without change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about these special conditions.
    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to these special
conditions contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to these special conditions, it is
important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI.
Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as ``PROPIN.''
The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the
FOIA, and the indicated comments will not be placed in the public
docket of these special conditions. Send submissions containing CBI to
Nazih Khaouly, Aircraft Systems, AIR-623, Technical Innovation Policy
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service,
Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines,
Washington 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. Comments the FAA receives, which are not
specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for
these special conditions.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nazih Khaouly, Aircraft Systems, AIR-
623, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The substance of these special conditions
has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in
several prior instances with no substantive comments received.
Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to Sec.  11.38(b), that new comments
are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are
unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for
comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the
comments received.

Background

    On March 15, 2022, StandardAero Business Aviation Services, LLC
applied for a supplemental type certificate for a rechargeable lithium
ion battery contained in the SAM on the Textron Model BAe.125 Series
800A/800B and Hawker 800/800XP airplanes. The SAM is a self-contained
situational awareness instrument that provides aircraft attitude,
altitude, airspeed, and slip indication, and contains a rechargeable
lithium ion battery. The Textron Model

BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/800XP airplanes are twin-engine
transport category business jets, each with a maximum passenger
capacity of 15 passengers and 2 crewmembers, and a maximum takeoff
weight of 27,400 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, StandardAero Business Aviation Services, LLC must show
that the Textron Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/800XP
airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of
the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A3EU or the applicable
regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except
for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Textron Model BAe.125 Series 800A/
800B and Hawker 800/800XP airplanes because of a novel or unusual
design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions
of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Textron Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/
800XP airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission
requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Textron Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/800XP
airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design
feature:
    Installation of a rechargeable lithium ion battery contained in the
SAM.

Discussion

    Rechargeable lithium batteries are considered to be a novel or
unusual design feature in transport category airplanes, with respect to
the requirements in 14 CFR 25.1353. This type of battery has certain
failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ
significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid
rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on transport
category airplanes. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into
airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-
cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery
packs introduces failure modes that require unique design
considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.
    Special Condition 1 requires that each individual cell within a
rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures
and pressures. Special Condition 2 addresses these same issues but for
the entire battery. Special Condition 2 requires the battery be
designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-
sustained, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure from one
cell to adjacent cells.
    Special Conditions 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the cells
and battery are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrollable
failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to
various factors beyond the control of the designer. Therefore, other
special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its
occupants if failure occurs.
    Special Conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory.
    Special Condition 4 clarifies that the flammable fluid fire-
protection requirements of 14 CFR 25.863 apply to rechargeable lithium
battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the
airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane
systems. Rechargeable lithium batteries contain electrolyte that is a
flammable fluid.
    Special Condition 5 requires each rechargeable lithium battery
installation to not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems,
equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may
escape in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure
condition. Special Condition 6 requires each rechargeable lithium
battery installation to have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect
on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat
it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The
means of meeting special conditions 5 and 6 may be the same, but they
are independent requirements addressing different hazards. Special
Condition 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, whereas Special
Condition 6 addresses heat.
    Special Condition 9 requires rechargeable lithium batteries to have
an ``automatic'' means to disconnect their charging source due to the
fast acting nature of lithium battery chemical reactions. Manual
intervention would not be timely or effective in mitigating the hazards
associated with these batteries.
    These special conditions apply to all rechargeable lithium battery
installations in lieu of 14 CFR 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at amendment
25-123, or Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments. Those
regulations will remain in effect for other battery installations on
these airplanes.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Textron Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B and Hawker 800/800XP airplanes.
Should StandardAero Business Aviation Services, LLC apply at a later
date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model
included on Type Certificate No. A3EU to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on these model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for
approval of this feature on these airplanes.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702,
44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Textron Model BAe.125 Series 800A/800B
and Hawker 800/800XP airplanes, as modified by

StandardAero Business Aviation Services, LLC.

Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

    In lieu of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at amendment 25-123, or
Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (4) at earlier amendments, each
rechargeable lithium battery installation must:
    1. Be designed to maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures
under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and
explosion.
    2. Be designed to prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining,
uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure, and automatically
control the charge rate of each cell to protect against adverse
operating conditions, such as cell imbalance, back charging,
overcharging and overheating.
    3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or
as a result of its failure that may accumulate in hazardous quantities
within the airplane.
    4. Meet the requirements of Sec.  25.863.
    5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment,
or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in
such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.
    6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane
structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can
generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.
    7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flight
crew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.
    8. Have a monitoring and warning feature that alerts the flightcrew
when its charge state falls below acceptable levels if its function is
required for safe operation of the airplane.
    9. Have a means to automatically disconnect from its charging
source in the event of an over-temperature condition, cell failure or
battery failure.

    Note: A battery system consists of the battery, battery charger
and any protective, monitoring and alerting circuitry or hardware
inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where
necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of this special condition,
a battery and battery system are referred to as a battery.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 20, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-15837 Filed 7-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23021-23022]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08734]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC20-17-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-600); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or
FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed extension of a
currently approved information collection: FERC-600, Rules of Practice
and Procedure: Complaint Procedures.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due June 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC20-17-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, at Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    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>    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>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-600, Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint
Procedures.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0180.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension without change of the current
information collection.
    Abstract: In accordance with 18 CFR 385.206, any person may file a
complaint seeking Commission action against any other person alleged to
be in violation of ``any statute, rule, order, or other law
administered by the Commission, or for any other alleged wrong over
which the Commission may have jurisdiction.'' Regulations at 18 CFR
part 343 provide for additional procedures and information collection
requirements for complaints and other filings that pertain to oil
pipelines under the Interstate Commerce Act.
    Type of Respondents: Any person that files a complaint for
Commission review and resolution.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden and cost \2\ for the information collection as
shown in the following table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the information
collection burden, refer to 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.
    \2\ The Commission staff thinks that the average respondent for
this collection is similarly situated to the Commission, in terms of
salary plus benefits. Based upon the FERC's 2019 average cost for
salary plus benefits, the average hourly cost is $80/hour.

                                             FERC-600--Rules of Practice and Procedure: Complaint Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Annual number of                              Average burden hour    Total annual burden
       Number of respondents            responses      Total number of responses  and cost per response      hour and cost        Cost per respondent
A.                                                 B.   C. (Column A x Column B)  D....................  E. (Column C x         F. (Column E / Column A)
                                                                                Column D).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62................................                  1                         62  160 hrs.; $12,800....  9,920 hrs.; $793,600                    $12,800
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use

of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.

    Dated: April 20, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08734 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 158 (Wednesday, August 17, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50662-50665]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17671]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95471; No. SR-NYSEARCA-2022-50]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

August 11, 2022.
    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 5, 2022, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') regarding credits for Floor Broker Qualified
Contingent Cross (``QCC'') transactions. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective August 5, 2022.\4\ The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange originally filed to amend the Fee Schedule on
August 1, 2022 (SR-NYSEArca-2022-48) and withdrew such filing on
August 5, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify
the credits offered to Floor Brokers for QCC transactions.\5\ The
Exchange proposes to implement the rule change on August 5, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A QCC Order is defined as an originating order to buy or
sell at least 1,000 contracts that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade coupled with a contra-side order or
orders totaling an equal number of contracts. See Rule 6.62P-
O(g)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Floor Brokers earn a credit for executed QCC orders of
($0.07) per contract for the first 300,000 contracts or ($0.10) per
contract in excess of 300,000.\6\ QCC executions in which a Customer is
on both sides of the QCC trade are not be eligible for a Floor Broker
credit, and the maximum Floor Broker credit is $375,000 per month per
Floor Broker firm.\7\ A Floor Broker that meets a certain minimum level
of average daily volume (``ADV'') may also earn an additional ($0.02)
per contract credit (the ``Enhanced Credit'') on the first 300,000
eligible QCC contracts. Specifically, a Floor Broker is currently
entitled to the Enhanced Credit if the Floor Broker executes the
greater of (1) at least 150% of the Floor Broker's First Quarter 2019
billable contract sides ADV; or (2) at least 30,000 billable contract
sides ADV.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Fee Schedule, Qualified Contingent Cross (``QCC'')
Transaction Fees and Credits, available at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \7\ See id. at Endnote 13.
    \8\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to increase the amount of the credits
available to Floor Brokers for executed QCC orders. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes that Floor Brokers may earn a credit of ($0.22) on
Non-Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC transactions and a credit of ($0.11)
on Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC transactions.\9\ The Exchange also
proposes to eliminate the Enhanced Credit, as the proposed increased
credits of ($0.11) and ($0.22) would exceed the credit amount that
Floors Brokers previously could have earned with the Enhanced
Credit.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Exchange also proposes to delete text in Endnote 13
providing that the Floor Broker credit is paid on volume within a
given tier and is not retroactive to the first contract traded. This
language relates to the current structure of the Floor Broker
credits, which is based on the number of contracts executed, and
would not be applicable to the proposed credits.
    \10\ To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to delete the
text from Endnote 13 setting forth the qualifying criteria for the
Enhanced Credit as well as accompanying text in Endnote 13
describing the calculation of the Enhanced Credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether the
proposed change would encourage Floor Brokers to increase their QCC
volume, the proposed change is intended to continue to incentivize
additional QCC executions by Floor Brokers by increasing the credits
available on such orders, and all Floor Brokers are eligible to qualify
for the proposed credits.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\12\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Proposed Rule Change Is Reasonable
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\14\ Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power
in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow.
More specifically, in June 2022, the Exchange had less than 13% market
share of

executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \15\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
increased from 9.07% for the month of June 2021 to 12.23% for the
month of June 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces
constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated otherwise,
modifications to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on
the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
    To respond to this competitive marketplace, the Exchange has
established incentives to assist Floor Brokers in attracting more
business to the Exchange--including credits on QCC transactions--as
such participants serve an important function in facilitating the
execution of orders on the Exchange (including via open outcry),
thereby promoting price discovery on the public markets.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modification of the credits
offered to Floor Brokers on QCC transactions is reasonable because it
is designed to continue to incent Floor Brokers to increase the number
of QCC transactions sent to the Exchange and would offer Floor Brokers
incentives on QCC transactions similar to those provided by other
options exchanges.\16\ The Exchange further believes that it is
reasonable to offer a ($0.22) credit for QCC transactions involving a
Non-Customer vs. Non-Customer and a ($0.11) credit on QCC transactions
involving a Customer vs. Non-Customer because Non-Customer vs. Non-
Customer QCC transactions are billable on both sides of the
transaction, whereas Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC transactions are
billable on one side. To the extent that the proposed change attracts
more volume to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue
to make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution,
which, in turn, promotes just and equitable principles of trade and
removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system. The Exchange notes that all market
participants stand to benefit from any increase in volume by Floor
Brokers, which could promote market depth, facilitate tighter spreads
and enhance price discovery to the extent the proposed change
encourages Floor Brokers to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading
venue, and may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from
other market participants. In addition, any increased liquidity on the
Exchange would result in enhanced market quality for all participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., EDGX Options Exchange Fee Schedule, QCC
Initiator/Solicitation Rebate Tiers (applying ($0.22) per contract
rebate up to 999,999 contracts for QCC transactions with non-
customers on both sides); BOX Options Fee Schedule at Section
IV.D.1. (QCC Rebate) (providing for ($0.22) per contract rebate up
to 1,499,999 contracts for QCC transactions when both parties are a
broker-dealer or market maker); see also Nasdaq ISE, Options 7,
Section 6.A. (QCC and Solicitation Rebate) (offering rebates on QCC
transactions of up to ($0.11) on 1,000,000 or more contract sides in
a month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, to the extent the proposed change continues to attract
greater volume and liquidity, the Exchange believes the proposed change
would improve the Exchange's overall competitiveness and strengthen its
market quality for all market participants. In the backdrop of the
competitive environment in which the Exchange operates, the proposed
rule change is a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase the
depth of its market and improve its market share relative to its
competitors. The Exchange's fees are constrained by intermarket
competition, as Floor Brokers may direct their order flow to any of the
16 options exchanges, including those offering rebates on QCC
orders.\17\ Thus, Floor Brokers have a choice of where they direct
their order flow, including their QCC transactions. The proposed rule
change is designed to continue to incent Floor Brokers to direct
liquidity to the Exchange and, in particular, QCC orders, thereby
promoting market depth, price discovery and improvement, and enhanced
order execution opportunities for market participants, particularly to
the extent Floor Brokers are incentivized to aggregate their trading
activity at the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange cannot predict with certainty whether the proposed
change would encourage Floor Brokers to increase their QCC order flow
to the Exchange, but believes that the proposed increased credits would
continue to incent Floor Brokers to do so.
The Proposed Rule Change Is an Equitable Allocation of Credits and Fees
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits. The proposal is based on the amount
and type of business transacted on the Exchange, and Floor Brokers can
attempt to trade QCC orders to earn the increased credits or not. In
addition, the proposed credits are available to all Floor Brokers
equally. The Exchange further believes that the proposed change, which
would provide a ($0.22) credit for Non-Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC
transactions and a ($0.11) credit on Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC
transactions, represents an equitable allocation of credits because
Non-Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC transactions are billable on both
sides of the transaction, whereas Customer vs. Non-Customer QCC
transactions are billable on one side. The Exchange also believes that
the proposed credits are an equitable allocation of fees and credits
because they would encourage and support Floor Brokers' role in
facilitating the execution of orders on the Exchange, and to the extent
the proposed credits incent Floor Brokers to direct increased liquidity
to the Exchange, all market participants would benefit from enhanced
opportunities for price improvement and order execution.
    Moreover, the proposed credits are designed to incent Floor Brokers
to encourage OTP Holders to aggregate their executions--particularly
QCC transactions--at the Exchange as a primary execution venue. To the
extent that the proposed changes attract more QCC volume to the
Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to make the Exchange
a more competitive venue for, among other things, order execution.
Thus, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve
market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Proposed Rule Change Is not Unfairly Discriminatory
    The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to modify
the credits offered to Floor Brokers on QCC orders because the proposed
credits would be available to all similarly-situated Floor Brokers on
an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The proposed credits are also
not unfairly discriminatory to non-Floor Brokers because Floor Brokers
serve an important function in facilitating the execution of orders on
the Exchange (including via open outcry), which the Exchange wishes to
encourage and support to promote price improvement opportunities for
all market participants.

    The proposal is based on the amount and type of business transacted
on the Exchange, and Floor Brokers are not obligated to execute QCC
orders. Rather, the proposal is designed to encourage Floor Brokers to
utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for all transactions
(if they have not done so previously) and increase QCC volume sent to
the Exchange. To the extent that the proposed change attracts more QCC
orders to the Exchange, this increased order flow would continue to
make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. Thus,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market
quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a
consequence, attract more order flow to the Exchange, thereby improving
market-wide quality and price discovery. The resulting increased volume
and liquidity would provide more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads to all market participants and thus would promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes
that the proposed change would encourage the submission of additional
liquidity to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, price
discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities
for all market participants. As a result, the Exchange believes that
the proposed change furthers the Commission's goal in adopting
Regulation NMS of fostering integrated competition among orders, which
promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of
orders, large and small.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 13, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed increased credits are
designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange (particularly
in Floor Brokers' QCC transactions), which may increase the volumes of
contracts traded on the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all market
participants on the Exchange, and increased QCC transactions would
increase opportunities for execution of other trading interest. The
proposed credits would be available to all similarly-situated Floor
Brokers that execute QCC trades, and to the extent that there is an
additional competitive burden on non-Floor Brokers, the Exchange
believes that any such burden would be appropriate because Floor
Brokers serve an important function in facilitating the execution of
orders (including via open outcry) and price discovery for all market
participants.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\19\ Therefore, currently
no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of
multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically,
in June 2022, the Exchange had less than 13% market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/Market-Data/Market-Data-Reports/Volume-and-Open-Interest/Monthly-Weekly-Volume-Statistics.
    \20\ Based on a compilation of OCC data for monthly volume of
equity-based options and monthly volume of equity-based ETF options,
see id., the Exchange's market share in equity-based options
increased from 9.07% for the month of June 2021 to 12.23% for the
month of June 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it modifies the Exchange's fees in a
manner designed to incent Floor Brokers to direct trading interest
(particularly QCC transactions) to the Exchange, to provide liquidity
and to attract order flow. To the extent that Floor Brokers are
incentivized to utilize the Exchange as a primary trading venue for all
transactions, all of the Exchange's market participants should benefit
from the improved market quality and increased opportunities for price
improvement.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually review, and consider
adjusting, its fees and credits to remain competitive with other
exchanges. For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment. The
Exchange further believes that the proposed change could promote
competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including
those that currently offer rebates on QCC transactions, by encouraging
additional orders (and, in particular, QCC orders) to be sent to the
Exchange for execution.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See note 16, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \22\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \23\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \24\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-50 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-50. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2022-50, and should be
submitted on or before September 7, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-17671 Filed 8-16-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P