[Federal Register: May 26, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 102)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 30353-30356]
[DOCID:fr26my06-30]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[FRL-8174-9]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability;
New Information Concerning SNAP Program Proposal on Ozone Depleting
Substitutes in Foam Blowing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available
to the public new information related to a November 4, 2005 proposed
rule under the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program under
section 612 of the Clean Air Act (70 FR 67120). The SNAP program
reviews alternatives to Class I and Class II ozone depleting substances
and approves the use of alternatives which reduce the overall risk to
public health and the environment. The November 4, 2005 proposed rule
proposed to list two hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs)--HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b--as unacceptable substitutes in foam blowing applications,
but proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. In
response to the November 2005 proposal, EPA received public comments,
which have been made available through the Air Docket (see General
Information section below for docket contact information). The Agency
has also received additional information regarding the technical
viability of non-ozone depleting alternatives in blowing agents
available for polyurethane ``pour foam'' and the extruded polystyrene
foam industries. Today, the Agency is requesting comment on these
materials. We plan to consider this information, and any comment
received during the comment period, in determining what future action
to take on our November 4, 2005 proposal regarding the use of HCFC-22
and HCFC-142b in foam blowing applications. This information may impact
the outcome of the final rule, such as adjusting the January 1, 2010
grandfathering date or clarifying the definition of ``existing use.''

DATES: We will accept comments on the new data through June 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile,
or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as
provided at the beginning of the supplementary information section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this
notice, contact Seema Schappelle by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Overnight or courier deliveries
should be sent to the office location at 1310 L Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20005. Notices and rulemakings under the SNAP program
are available on the internet at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
    A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information ?
    B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?
    C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?
II. What is today's action?
III. What information is EPA making available for review and
comment?
IV. Where can I get the data being made available for comment?
V. Why is EPA making this data available?
VI. What is EPA not taking comment on?
VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my
comments?

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of Related Information?

1. Docket
    EPA has established an official public docket for this action under
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507 (continuation of OAR-2003-0228 and Docket
A-2000-18). The official public docket consists of the documents
specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received,
and other information related to this action. Hard copies of documents
from prior to the public comment period are found under Docket ID No.
A-2000-18. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket
does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official
public docket is the collection of materials that is available for
public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>,
and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-
1742.
2. Electronic Access
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
EPA's electronic public docket and comment

system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access
those documents in the public docket that are available electronically.
Once in the system, key in the appropriate docket identification
number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets.
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket
facility identified in section I.B.1. above.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper,
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that
material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's
electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the
copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief
description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or
through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA,
identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject
line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.''
EPA is not required to consider these late comments. If you wish to
submit CBI or information that is otherwise protected by statute,
please follow the instructions in section I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets
or e-mail to submit CBI or information protected by statute.
1. Electronically
    If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA
recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail
address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also
include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM
you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM.
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment
and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance
of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment,
and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a
comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. 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.
    Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to
EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go
directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the

online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic
public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information
Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, key in
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. The system is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or
other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your
comment.
    Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. In contrast to

EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an
``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to
the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the
mailing address identified in section I.B.1. These electronic
submissions will be accepted in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect or ASCII
file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of
encryption.
2. By Mail
    Send two copies of your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507.
3. By Hand Delivery or Courier
    Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC., Attention
Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0507. Such deliveries are only accepted during
the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in section I.B.1.
4. By Facsimile
    Fax your comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-
2004-0507.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail.
Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following
address: Seema Schappelle, U.S. EPA, 8th floor, 1310 L Street NW,
Washington DC 20005 via overnight delivery service, Attention Docket ID
No. OAR-2004-0507. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as
CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit
the copy that does

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI
will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public
docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the
procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. What is today's action?

    Today, we are requesting comment on additional information
developed after the comment period on the appropriate period for
grandfathering existing users in certain end uses for foam blowing
applications. In the November 4, 2005 proposed rule, EPA proposed two
actions regarding the acceptability of HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b in the
foam sector. First, EPA proposed to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as
unacceptable foam blowing agent substitutes for HCFC-141b in commercial
refrigeration, sandwich panels, and slabstock and ``other'' foam, but
proposed to grandfather existing users until January 1, 2010. Second,
EPA proposed to find HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b unacceptable as substitutes
for CFCs in all foam end-uses, but proposed to grandfather existing
users until January 1, 2010.
    Based on the public comments received, it became apparent that
several manufacturers had made significant progress in adopting non-
ozone depleting substances (ODS) alternatives for specific foam
applications. Beginning with a previous proposal on the use of HCFC-22
and HCFC-142b in foam manufacturing on July 11, 2000 (65 FR 42653), the
Agency has continually monitored the progress of the industry's
transition to alternatives. In the July 22, 2002 final SNAP rule to
that proposal (67 FR 47703), EPA reiterated that it would monitor
progress on the transition and make adjustments as needed: ``EPA is
continuing to review the commercial refrigeration, sandwich panels, and
slabstock and other foams end-uses to determine the progress of non-
ozone depleting alternatives. As non-ozone depleting alternatives
become more widely available, the Agency will reevaluate the
acceptability of HCFCs in these end uses. Therefore, foam manufacturers
within these applications that are using HCFCs should begin using non-
ozone depleting alternatives as soon as they are available in
anticipation of future EPA action restricting the use of HCFCs.''
    In keeping with that policy, especially in light of public comments
on the November 2005 proposal, EPA asked Stratus Consulting, Inc. to
evaluate the availability and technical viability of alternatives in
the polyurethane ``pour foam'' and the extruded polystyrene foam
industries. We are making the evaluation from Stratus available for
comment and plan to consider this information and any comment received
during the comment period in determining what the appropriate
grandfathering period should be for existing use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b in foam blowing applications.

III. What information is EPA making available for review and comment?

    EPA is making available two reports by Stratus Consulting, Inc. on
the availability and technical viability of alternatives in the
polyurethane ``pour foam'' and the extruded polystyrene foam
industries. The information for these assessments was collected
directly from industry representatives through meetings and phone
conversations. The conclusions (and in the case of pour foam,
recommendations) provided in these two reports are provided below.
1. Polyurethane ``Pour Foam''
a. Conclusions
    i. Non-ODS alternatives are available, currently being formulated
by systems houses, and technically viable across all end uses.
    ii. No technical performance hurdles to using non-ODS alternatives
were identified that cannot be overcome either through design changes
or with support from suppliers and systems houses.
    iii. EPA's 2000 SNAP proposal, which addresses the use of HCFCs in
foam manufacturing, stated that it can take up to four years to
complete blowing agent transitions (U.S. EPA, 2000). The transition
requires six steps: (1) Obtaining new permits or modifying existing
permits, (2) changing equipment to optimize production and ensure
worker safety, (3) establishing raw material suppliers, (4) developing
formulations, (5) testing final products, and (6) obtaining final
product review and approval by relevant boards and agencies. Companies
that chose to plan ahead for the eventual phase-out of HCFC-22 and
HCFC-142b could have initiated this process in the period from 2002 to
2003, when the current suite of alternatives became available, if not
before, and could have completed the first four steps by the current
date. Thus, these companies could anticipate completing their
conversion by 2006 or 2007.
    iv. Those companies that have not taken the initial steps to
transition to non-ODS blowing agents should be able to have market-
ready products by January 2008. This is based on two findings. First,
most if not all, systems houses have already developed non-ODS
formulations; and second, several manufacturers of finished pour foam
products (including walk-in storage coolers, reach-in storage coolers,
metal panels, insulated beverage dispensers, picnic coolers, and entry
and garage doors) were able to convert to non-ODS formulations within
18 months.
    v. Several end users that converted from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22 made
the decision to convert to HCFC-22 under the assumption that HCFC-22
would be an acceptable alternative until January 1, 2010 (Russell,
2006f).
    vi. Those companies that have already converted to HFC alternatives
are bearing higher system costs than those that have not. While some of
these companies were forced to convert to HFCs because they used HCFC-
141b for an extended period of time and were therefore unable to allot
the time necessary to transition to HCFC-22, others chose to convert to
HFC alternatives to be environmentally proactive and avoid a second
conversion in the future.
    vii. Any grandfathering period for current HCFC-22 users that would
extend beyond January 1, 2008 would put those who have already
converted to HFCs in a higher cost position for an extended period of
time. Companies that converted and adopted ozone friendly substitutes
to HCFC-141b based on EPA's July 11, 2000 proposed rulemaking, are
competitively disadvantaged.
    viii. Shortening the grandfather period is consistent with the
spirit of the narrowed use limits. However, product sectors should be
allowed sufficient time to complete the conversions.
b. Recommendations
    i. EPA needs to allow sufficient time for companies to test final
products, and obtain final review and approval from customers, code
bodies, agencies, and relevant boards in order to complete conversions
to non-ODS-alternatives across product sectors. It is probable that end
users will be able to complete the final steps for a successful
conversion in 9-14 months.
    ii. If EPA chooses to remove the narrowed use limits for sandwich
panels, slabstock, and other pour foam applications, a grandfathering
deadline of January 1, 2008 is recommended for existing users. By this
date, all companies would have had sufficient time to convert to
available non-ODS

alternatives. This timeline would give companies that converted from
HCFC-141b to HCFC-22 several more years of operations and cost savings
to offset their initial costs of converting from HCFC-141b to HCFC-22.
2. Extruded Polystyrene Foam
c. Conclusions
    i. XPS boardstock made from non-ODS blowing agent technology has
been produced in Europe since 2001. These products have been
commercially accepted by the existing customer base, and the industry
did not experience a loss of competitive position with respect to non-
XPS foam insulation products (BASF, 2004; Dow Chemical Company, 2005).
    ii. The characterization of R-value specifications differs between
Europe and the United States. This is a major driving force for U.S.
manufacturers optimizing blowing agents because specific R-values have
a more direct effect on the competitiveness of the product in this
country.
    iii. European and United States markets demand different physical
dimensions. As described above, narrower, thicker, and higher density
products are easier to produce with alternative formulations such as
those commercialized in Europe.
    iv. The chemical and physical property comparisons between non-ODS
alternatives and HCFC-142b and HCFC-22 indicate that commercially
viable alternatives will be adopted shortly by U.S. manufacturers. In
fact, companies considering additional capacity are likely to have
developed a viable solution before committing funds for capital
expansion.
    v. U.S. manufacturers are probably considering the following
options, based on the physical properties of these blowing agents both
individually and when incorporated into blends (UNEP, 2005):

1. HFC-134a
2. Hydrocarbons
3. Ethanol
4. HFC-152a
5. CO2
6. Other alternatives currently under development.

    vi. It takes approximately 30-36 months to order and install new
equipment, and manufacture products that meet specifications.
Formulations need to be identified by 2007 to meet the January 1, 2010,
deadline; thus these lines will be ready for manufacturing integration
in late 2008 or early 2009. It would benefit companies developing new
capacity before January 1, 2010, to install flexible technologies that
could use HCFC-142b, if necessary, and easily switch to alternatives by
the deadline.
    The Agency is seeking comments on the accuracy and thoroughness of
the information in the two reports summarized above.

IV. Where can I get the data being made available for comment?

    All of the data in which we are seeking comment can be obtained
through the Air Docket (see General Information section above for
docket contact information). Reference numbers are as follows:

--Memo on Review of SNAP Approved Non-Ozone Depleting Blowing Agents
Available to the Extruded Polystyrene Foam Industry--Air Docket, OAR-
2004-0507 reference number XX
--Memo on Technical Viability of SNAP Approved Non-Ozone Depleting
Blowing Agents Available for Pour Foam Applications--Air Docket, OAR-
2004-0507 reference number XX

V. Why is EPA making this data available?

    We are soliciting comment on this new information to ensure that we
use the best information available when we determine how to proceed on
the grandfathering period proposed in our November 4, 2005 proposal to
list HCFC-22 and HCFC-142b as unacceptable. Because the information on
which we are seeking comment will be considered by EPA in determining
how to proceed on our proposal regarding the use of HCFC-22 and HCFC-
142b in foam blowing applications, the Agency is providing the public
with an opportunity to comment on the quality of the available
information. This information will be used to ensure that issues
relating to the technical viability of alternatives and industry
impacts are fully considered by EPA prior to moving forward with a
rulemaking in the foams sector.

VI. What is EPA not taking comment on?

    EPA is only accepting comments on accuracy and completeness of the
information outlined in today's Federal Register Notice.

VII. What supporting documentation do I need to include in my comments?

    Please provide any published studies or raw data supporting your
position.

    Dated: May 12, 2006.
Brian McLean,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E6-8177 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 197)]
[Notices]
[Page 59689-59690]
[DOCID:fr09oc08-150]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58712; File No. SR-Amex-2008-73]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by American Stock Exchange LLC
Relating to the Amex Price List After the Acquisition of NYSE Euronext

October 2, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 29, 2008, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange 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\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In connection with its pending acquisition by NYSE Euronext--the
parent company of the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') and NYSE
Arca--the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or ``Exchange'') is
seeking to revise the Amex Price List that will be put in effect after
the acquisition closes.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web
site at http://www.amex.com, the Office of the Secretary, the Amex and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below,
of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

(1) Purpose
Background
    Pursuant to an agreement dated January 17, 2008, the Amex is being
acquired by NYSE Euronext--the parent company of the NYSE and NYSE
Arca--through a series of mergers as described in SR-Amex-2008-62 (the
``Transaction'').\3\ Following completion of the Transaction, Amex will
become one of the U.S. Regulated Subsidiaries \4\ of NYSE Euronext and
will continue to engage in the business of operating a national
securities exchange registered under Section 6 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ``Act'').\5\ Following the
Transaction, the name of the new exchange will be NYSE Alternext US
LLC. NYSE Alternext US will continue to operate a marketplace for the
listing and trading of equities, options, bonds and for a limited
period of time Exchange Traded Fund shares (``ETFs'') and certain
structured products. It is anticipated that after a period of
transition during which these products will continue to trade on Amex
legacy trading systems and facilities, the trading of these products
will be relocated to trading systems and facilities operated by NYSE or
NYSE Arca on behalf of NYSE Alternext US.\6\ The substantive changes to
the Amex Price List proposed herein will be in effect during the
transition period, beginning with the first complete billable month
after the completion of the Transaction through to the relocation of
the trading of each of the product lines. The non-substantive changes
such as changes to the name of the Exchange and elimination of
references to seat owners and memberships will take place immediately
after the Transaction closes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58284 (August 1, 2008),
73 FR 46086 (August 7, 2008) Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change SR-Amex 2008-62.
    \4\ The term ``U.S. Regulated Subsidiary'' is defined under
Article VII, Section 7.3(G) of the Bylaws of NYSE Euronext.
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ For more information regarding the relocation of equity
products see Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58265 (July 30,
2008) 73 FR 46075 (August 7, 2008) Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change SR-Amex 2008-63. In addition, the Exchange will submit
separate rule filings regarding the relocation of options, bonds,
ETFs and structured products in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the transition period NYSE Alternext US intends to make
available to persons and entities that apply and meet certain
requirements a temporary trading permit (to be known as an ``86 Trinity
Permit'') to allow holders to trade products currently traded on the
Exchange prior to the relocation of the trading of the products as
described above.\7\ To ensure continuity following the Transaction,
persons and entities that were authorized to trade on the Exchange
immediately prior to the Transaction, will be deemed to have satisfied
applicable requirements necessary to receive an 86 Trinity Permit. Any
person or organization seeking access to the Exchange during the
transition period will need to obtain an 86 Trinity Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For a further description of 86 Trinity Permit Holders see
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58284 (August 1, 2008) 73 FR
46086 (August 7, 2008) Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change SR-
Amex 2008-62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Changes to the Price List
    In addition to changing the name of the Amex Price List to the NYSE
Alternext U.S. Price List and revisions to references related to seat
owner and memberships to reflect the issuance of 86 Trinity Permits,
the Exchange proposes to make the following changes:
    1. The following floor fees will be waived for holders of 86
Trinity Permits during the transition period beginning with the first
complete billable month after the Transaction closes (referred to
hereinafter as the ``Operative Date''). For example, if the Transaction
closes in September, floor fees will be waived beginning in October.
Floor fees include Floor Clerk Fee, Floor Facility Fee, Floor Wire
Privilege Fee, Post Fee per Podium Fee, Specialist Registration Fee and
the Technology Fee.
    2. The Cable TV fee will be increased from $360 per year to $420
per year to reflect an increase in the cost of this service to the
Exchange; this fee

increase will go into effect on the Operative Date. In addition the
Price List will be revised to include the monthly rate charged for
services that are billed on a monthly rather than annual basis.
Reference to the Membership Certificate fee of $20.00 will be
eliminated since the Exchange will no longer issue such certificates.
    3. The Price List section on Booth Rental and Order Pads is revised
and updated to eliminate the references to (i) Order Pads since there
is no fee indicated for order pads in that section; and (ii) the Booth
Rental fees no longer in effect.
    4. The Price List section on Members Fees is revised to (i) change
the name of the section to 86 Trinity Permit Holder Fees; (ii)
eliminate Membership Dues; (iii) eliminate Initiation Fees, except for
the Application Processing Fee and the $45 fee for use of the
Exchange's in-house fingerprinting service; (iv) change the name of the
subsection Membership Fees to 86 Trinity Permit Holder Fees and waive
the Limited Trading Permits (``LTP'') fee for those LTP holders who
become 86 Trinity Permit Holders after the Transaction closes\8\ The
LTP Fee is billed at the beginning of each quarter, therefore, if the
Transaction closes in the middle of a quarter, waiver of the fee will
be effective at the beginning of the next quarter and will not be
applied retroactively; (v) eliminate the Qualifying Maintenance fee
charged to Interim Members; and (vi) eliminate obsolete notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As discussed in proposed rule change SR-Amex 2008-62, during
the transition period physical and electronic access to NYSE
Alternext US's trading facilities will only be made available to
individuals that obtain an 86 Trinity Permit, thus the access a LTP
holder had prior to the Transaction will be cancelleld and for
continued access such former LTP holder may obtain an 86 Trinity
Permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Price List section on Registration and IDC Fees is being
revised to replace NASD with FINRA.
    References throughout the Price List to Amex or ASE will be revised
to NYSE Alternext U.S. or Exchange where appropriate.
(2) Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the 1934 Act \9\ regarding the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among exchange
members and other persons using exchange facilities. In particular the
Exchange is revising its Price List to be in effect during the
transition period after the closing of its Transaction with NYSE
Euronext. Most of the fees currently in place on the Amex will remain
in effect after the closing of the Transaction and throughout the
transition period, however, certain member fees are being waived for
the transition period to help off-set costs it is anticipated members
will incur when transitioning their operations to NYSE Alternext's new
trading facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the 1934 Act.

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 has become effective immediately pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if
it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary of
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml) or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Amex-2008-73 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-Amex-2008-73. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, on official business
days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 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; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
Amex-2008-73 and should be submitted on or before October 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority. \12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-23925 Filed 10-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:e-cigarettes and e-liquid should not be classified as tobacco products because they are not. There is a fundamental difference between smoke from tobacco and water vapor from e-cigarettes. If ketchup can be classified as a fruit in our public school systems the system the FDA uses to examine things is fundamentally flawed. Also, the government cannot take away any rights of any person so long as there is no victim, and there is none. A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and the wider vaping community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 37 (Friday, February 26, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11688-11691]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03775]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0324, FRL-10018-42-Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New York;
Ozone Season NOX Controls for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion
Turbines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
ozone concerning the control of oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision of a New York regulation
that lowers allowable NOX emissions from simple cycle and
regenerative combustion turbines during the ozone season. The lower
emissions from these sources will help to address Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements, ozone nonattainment, and protect the health of New York
State residents.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 29, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2020-0324 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fausto Taveras, Environmental
Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at
(212) 637-3378, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Supplementary Information section is
arranged as follows:

Table of Contents

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?
III. What did New York submit?
IV. What is the EPA's evaluation of New York's SIP submittal?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the New York SIP
submitted by the State of New York on May 18, 2020. The SIP revision
includes a newly-adopted regulation, Title 6 of the New York Code of
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Subpart 227-3, ``Ozone Season Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and
Regenerative Combustion Turbines'', that reduces NOX
emissions from simple cycle and regenerative combustion turbines during
the ozone season. The EPA is proposing to approve New York's May 2020
SIP submittal, which applies to major sources of NOX, as a
SIP-strengthening measure for New York's ozone SIP.
    The EPA is also proposing to approve into the SIP the new version
of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, ``Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget
and Allowance Program'' (New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation).
New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation contained a NOX
emissions budget and allowance trading system that is no longer in
effect and that New York repealed from the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations on September 5, 2014.

II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?

2008 and 2015 Ozone NAAQS Revisions

    In March 2008, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone to 0.075 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame (2008 8-hour ozone standard). In
October 2015, the EPA revised this standard to 0.070 ppm averaged over
an 8-hour time frame (2015 8-hour ozone standard).
    On May 21, 2012, the EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment
designations for areas across the country with respect to the 2008 8-
hour ozone standard and, on July 20, 2012, the designations became
effective. See 77 FR 30160 (May 21, 2012). The New York-Northern New
Jersey-Long Island Connecticut metropolitan area (NYMA) was designated
by the EPA as a ``marginal'' nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\1\ In 2016, the EPA determined that the NYMA did not attain the
2008 ozone standard by the July 20, 2015 attainment date and was
reclassified from a ``marginal'' to a ``moderate'' nonattainment area.
See 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). State attainment plans for ``moderate''
nonattainment areas were due by January 1, 2017. See id. On April 30,
2018, the EPA finalized its attainment/nonattainment designations for
most areas across the country as to the 2015 8-hour ozone standard, in
which the NYMA was designated by the EPA as a ``moderate''
nonattainment area. See 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). On September 23,
2019, the EPA reclassified the NYMA to ``serious'' nonattainment as to
the 2008 8-hour ozone standard. See 84 FR 44238 (August 23, 2019). The
serious area attainment date and the deadline for RACT measures not
tied to attainment is July 20, 2021. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The New York portion of the NYMA, is composed of the five
boroughs of New York City and the surrounding counties of Nassau,
Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and the Shinnecock Indian Nation. See
40 CFR 81.333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York's NOX Trading Programs

    On April 19, 2000, the EPA approved New York's 227-3 Trading
Program Regulation into New York's SIP for ozone. See 65 FR 20905
(April 19, 2000). New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation
implemented New York's NOX budget and allowance trading
program for large electricity and industrial sources. The regulation
addressed New York's portion of the Ozone Transportation Commission
(OTC) regional nitrogen oxides budget and allowance (NOX
Budget) trading program that reduced NOX emissions generated
within the Ozone Transport Region, which included New York State. The
OTC had adopted a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on September 27,
1994, which obligated signatory states to regionwide ozone season
reductions in NOX emissions, with one phase of reductions
occurring by 1999, and further NOX emission reductions
beginning in 2003 to help achieve attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation addressed the

emission reductions required by 1999, and included NOX
emission caps for the 1999, 2001, and 2002 ozone seasons.
    New York's 6 NYCRR Subpart 204, NOX Budget Trading
Program, approved into the SIP on May 22, 2001 (see 66 FR 28059 (May
22, 2001)), superseded New York's 227-3 Trading Program, and addressed
the additional NOX emissions reductions required by the MOU
beginning in 2003. Subpart 204 also addressed New York's transport
obligations under the NOX SIP call,\2\ which was promulgated
by EPA to address NOX emissions that traveled across state
boundaries that interfered with downwind attainment and maintenance of
the 1979 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The NOX SIP call (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998)
required 22 eastern states, including New York, to submit SIPs to
address the regional transport of ozone through reductions in
NOX to help achieve the 1979 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2005, the EPA promulgated the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(CAIR) to address transported emissions that significantly contributed
to downwind states' nonattainment and interfered with maintenance of
the 1997 ozone (as well as 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS).\3\ CAIR
included additional ozone season NOX emission reductions
beginning in 2009 under a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). On January
24, 2008, the EPA approved a New York SIP revision, which established a
CAIR state trading program for New York for ozone season NOX
emissions (as well as annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) and annual
NOX emissions). See 73 FR 4109 (January 24, 2008). The EPA
determined that New York's CAIR trading program rules, which replaced
the existing CAIR FIP for New York, met the CAIR requirements. New
York's CAIR Ozone Season Trading Program was implemented under NYCRR
Subpart 243, ``CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.'' New
York's CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program superseded
NYCRR Subpart 204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ CAIR (70 FR 25162, May 12, 2005) required 28 states,
including New York, to reduce emissions of NOX and
SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAIR was followed by the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) \4\
in August 2011. CSAPR addressed the same NAAQS as CAIR, as well as the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ CSAPR promulgated FIPs requiring
affected States, including New York, to participate in federal trading
programs to reduce ozone season NOX emissions (as well
annual SO2 and annual NOX emissions). CSAPR was
updated in 2016 to address eastern states transport obligations with
regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Among other things, the CSAPR update
further lowered New York's ozone season NOX budget to
address the more stringent ozone NAAQS. CSAPR required additional
NOX emission reductions under a FIP, which EPA began
implementing on January 1, 2015.\6\ Under CSAPR, states could submit an
``abbreviated'' SIP revision that, upon approval, replaced the default
allocations and/or applicability provisions of CSAPR federal trading
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA promulgated CSAPR (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011) to
replace CAIR, which was remanded to EPA in 2008 by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
    \5\ CSAPR Update rule (81 FR 74504, October 26, 2016) required
22 eastern states to limit emissions of NOX.
    \6\ CSAPR implementation was stayed during the course of
litigation in the D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court until the D.C.
Circuit lifted the stay on October 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 8, 2019, the EPA approved a New York ``abbreviated'' SIP
revision, which established New York's CSAPR state trading program for
ozone season NOX emissions (as well as annual SO2
and annual NOX emissions). See 84 FR 38878 (August 8, 2019).
The EPA determined that New York's CSAPR trading program rules, which
replaced provisions of the CSAPR FIP for New York, met the requirements
of the CSAPR federal trading program. New York's CSAPR Ozone Season
Trading Program was implemented under NYCRR Subpart 243, ``CSAPR
NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program.'' In the August 8,
2019 final rule approving New York's CSAPR trading program, EPA also
approved a request by New York to rescind from the SIP NYCRR Subpart
243, ``CAIR NOX Ozone Season Trading Program,'' which
implemented New York's discontinued CAIR trading program for ozone
season NOX emissions. On November 12, 2015, New York adopted
amendments to 6 NYCRR Subpart 243 that repealed and replaced CAIR
trading program rules with CSAPR trading program rules. Subsequently,
on November 11, 2018, New York adopted amendments to NYCRR Subpart 243
that repealed and replaced the November 12, 2015 adopted rules with new
versions of New York's CSAPR trading program rules to conform with the
EPA's 2016 CSAPR update. In a Direct Final Rule approving New York's
CSAPR rules,\7\ the EPA determined that, consistent with CAA section
110(l), the removal of New York's CAIR trading program rules, would not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ On May 21, 2019 (84 FR 22995 and 84 FR 22972), EPA
simultaneously published a proposed rule and a direct final rule to
approve new York's CSAPR trading program rules. The EPA received a
public comment on the proposed rule and intended to withdraw the
direct final rule prior to the effective date of June 20, 2019.
However, the EPA inadvertently did not withdraw the direct final
rule prior to that date and the rule prematurely became effective on
June 20, 2019. In the August 8, 2019 final rule (84 FR 38878, August
8, 2019), the EPA responded to the public comment, approved the
revised versions of New York's rules, and amended the effective date
of the regulations' inclusion into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What did New York submit?

    On May 18, 2020, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC or New York) submitted to the EPA a formal
revision to its SIP. The proposed SIP revision consists of 6 NYCRR
Subpart 227-3, ``Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX)
Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion
Turbines''. On December 11, 2019, New York adopted 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-
3, ``Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emission Limits
for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines''.\8\ Simple
cycle combustion turbines (SCCTs), also known as peaking units
(peakers), run to meet electric load during periods of peak electricity
demand. These peakers generally have either no or low-level
NOX emission controls and typically operate during periods
of elevated temperature when electric demand increases. Many of the
peakers impacted by New York's rule are located in the New York portion
of the NYMA. Due to peakers' low-level NOX emission
controls, peakers within the NYMA demonstrate very high NOX
emissions which contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone
within the area. During these periods of elevated temperature, ozone
levels tend to rise to unhealthy levels in ozone nonattainment areas.
Inclusion in the SIP of more stringent NOX emission limits
for SCCTs located throughout the State, and particularly in the New
York portion of the NYMA, would provide additional NOX
reductions to help attain the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS and protect the
health of New York residents. New York has elected to phase in the
NOX emission limits during the ozone season for SCCTs with a
nameplate capacity of 15 megawatts (MWs) or greater that inject power
into the transmission or distribution system. New York believes the
phase-in approach for the NOX emission limit would enable
owners or operators with

affected sources to plan over a longer term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ New York proposed the rule on February 27, 2019 and the
public comment period ended on May 20, 2019. New York then re-
proposed the rule on August 21, 2019 and the public comment period
ended on October 7, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rule requires, in pertinent part, all impacted SCCTs owners or
operators to submit, by March 2, 2020, a compliance plan that, for each
affected source, must contain identifying numbers (such as facility
number, source number, and name) and a schedule that outlines how the
owner or operator will comply with the rule's requirements. The
compliance plan must also include a list of the emission sources in
which the owner or operator will install controls, what those controls
will be, and which sources will be replaced or repowered. NYSDEC has
informed the EPA that the required compliance plans were received from
the impacted SCCTs owners or operators.
    As of May 1, 2023, the first phase of the NOX emission
limits will become effective, at which time the facility-level weighted
average of each affected SCCT must comply with a daily NOX
emission limit of 100 ppmvd during the ozone season.\9\ As of May 1,
2025, the second and final phase of NOX emission limits will
become effective, at which time the facility-level weighted average of
each affected SCCTs must comply with a daily NOX emission
limit of 25 ppmvd for gaseous fuels and 42 ppmvd for distillate oil or
other liquid fuel. The owner or operator of each affected SCCT must
measure and monitor NOX emissions by conducting a stack
test, consistent with 6 NYCRR Section 227-2.6(c), at least once per
permit term. Owners or operators may also choose to monitor with a
Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS), consistent with 6 NYCRR
Section 227-2.6(b), or with an equivalent monitoring system acceptable
to New York. The owner or operator of each SCCT must also report
operational data to New York as part of their annual compliance report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The NOX emission limits are on a parts per
million dry volume basis (ppmvd), corrected to 15% oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Section 227-3.5, New York's rule provides two additional
compliance options to offer flexibility for owners and operators to
meet the emission limits. The first option would allow owners and
operators of affected SCCTs to elect an ``ozone season stop'', by which
the operating permit would include an enforceable condition that the
affected source may not operate during the ozone season. The second
option, the utilization of ``electric and renewable energy resources'',
would allow owners and operators to employ alternative resources while
adhering to a facility-level average NOX daily emission
limit on a pounds of NOX per megawatt hour (lb/MWh) basis
for all applicable SCCTs, electric storage resources, and/or renewable
generation resources within the facility. Under the second option, as
of May 1, 2023, all affected SCCTs that utilize electric storage and
renewable resources must achieve an emission limit of 3.0 lb
NOX/MWh. Effective on May 1, 2025, affected gaseous fuels
SCCTs must achieve a limit of 1.5 lb NOX/MWh, while affected
distillated oil or other liquid fuel SCCTs must achieve a limit of 2.0
lb NOX/MWh.
    In the May 18, 2020 SIP revision submittal, New York also requested
that the EPA remove from the SIP its previous version of 6 NYCRR
Subpart 227-3, ``Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and
Allowance Program'', which New York repealed from the New York Code of
Rules and Regulations on September 5, 2014.\10\ New York's 227-3
Trading Program Regulation contained a NOX emission and
allowance trading program for large electricity and industrial sources
that is no longer in effect. The EPA approved New York's 227-3 Trading
Program Regulation on April 19, 2000. See 65 FR 20905 (April 19, 2000).
The EPA approved administrative changes to the New York budget and
allowance regulation on May 22, 2001. See 66 FR 28060 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ New York State Register, Volume XXXVI, Issue 38, 9/24/14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the EPA's evaluation of New York's SIP submittal?

    For the following reasons, the EPA is proposing to approve New
York's SIP revisions.

Addition of New York's Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) Emission
Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines

    The EPA agrees with New York's evaluation that the newly-adopted
regulation will lead to an estimated reduction of 18 tons of
NOX per high ozone day. An 18-ton NOX reduction
on a high ozone day would represent a reduction of over 10 percent of
NYMA NOX emissions from electricity sector and an overall
reduction of 3.5 percent from all sources. This reduction will result
in NOX reduction throughout the NYMA, strengthen New York's
ozone SIP, and help the State reach attainment for the 2008 and 2015
ozone NAAQS.
    EPA has also reviewed New Jersey and Connecticut's NOX
emission limits for SCCTs with similar nameplate capacities and
compared those limits with the limits adopted by NYSDEC in this rule.
The EPA has observed that by the rule's second and final phase, the
peaker NOX emission limits will be as stringent as New
Jersey's for any SCCT that is a High Electric Demand Day (HEDD)
unit.\11\ Connecticut adopted a similar phase-in approach as to
NOX emission limits for peakers and the EPA observed that
New York's rule is more stringent than Connecticut's.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Table 7 of New Jersey's NOX RACT regulation,
Subchapter 19, provides Maximum Allowable NOX Emission
Rate for any Stationary Combustion Turbine that is a HEDD Unit. See
https://www.state.nj.us/dep/aqm/currentrules/Sub19.pdf.
    \12\ Section 22a-174-22e of Connecticut's NOX
Emissions from Fuel-Burning Emission Units provides emission
limitations for SCCTs being phased-in for June 2018 and June 2023.
See https://eregulations.ct.gov/eRegsPortal/Search/getDocument?guid=%7B8DB8E520-C8D2-4798-94E2-8740D90BA8B5%7D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As to the two additional compliance options mentioned in Section
III, EPA proposes to approve (a) the ``ozone season stop'' compliance
option because it would reduce the amount of peakers with low-level
NOX emission controls that are active during the ozone
season and (b) the utilization of ``electric storage and renewable
energy resources'' compliance option because it would enable owners and
operators to comply with a weighted average out-put based daily
emission limit while also reducing the reliance on SCCTs during high
electrical demand days by encouraging owners and operators to utilize
alternative, non-NOX emitting resources.
    The EPA has reviewed New York's SIP submittal, which seeks to
incorporate 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, ``Ozone Season Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative
Combustion Turbines''. After evaluating Subpart 227-3 for consistency
with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy, the EPA proposes to find
that the submission fully addresses the ozone nonattainment
requirements found in CAA Section 172, 42 U.S.C. Section 7502, and
proposes to approve this revision.

Removal of New York's Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance
Program (Ozone Control Periods 1999-2002)

    The EPA agrees with New York's evaluation that the previous version
of 6 NYCRR Subpart 227-3, ``Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget
and Allowance Program'', should be removed from the New York SIP. The
EPA has determined that, as discussed in section II, both New York's
227-3 Trading Program Regulation and Subpart 204 have been superseded
by

other state and federal regulations that required additional
NOX ozone season emission reductions. As the EPA determined
regarding New York's CAIR trading program rule, see section II, the EPA
does not believe that the removal of New York's 227-3 Trading Program
Regulation from New York's SIP will interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the NAAQS. And as discussed in
section II, New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation predates more
stringent rules and tighter NOX ozone season budgets under
the NOX SIP call, CAIR, and CSAPR trading programs, as well
as New York NOX RACT rules; it is not applicable to the
current federal or state regulatory framework. New York does not rely
on emission reductions from New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation
to attain any NAAQS and the EPA no longer operates the NOX
Budget Trading Program allowing for the allocation and trading of
allowances. Therefore, New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation
should be removed from the NY SIP.
    The removal of New York's 227-3 Trading Program Regulation from New
York's SIP will have no consequences for the attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS in any area, now or in the future. Consistent with CAA
section 110(l), the EPA has determined that the removal of New York's
227-3 Trading Program Regulation will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or
any other applicable requirement of the NAAQS. Accordingly, the EPA
finds that it is appropriate to approve the removal of 6 NYCRR Subpart
227-3, ``Pre-2003 Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget and Allowance
Program'', from the New York SIP.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposal. These comments will be considered before the EPA takes
final action. Interested parties may participate in the federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments as discussed in the
ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is also proposing to incorporate by
reference NYSDEC rule discussed in section III of this preamble in
accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials available through the docket for
this action, EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0324, at http://regulations.gov, and at
the EPA Region II Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FUTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); see also 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
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 (2 U.S.C. 1501);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, addressing New York's
adopted regulation that reduces NOX emissions from simple
cycle and regenerative combustion turbines during the ozone season, 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 any substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Intergovernmental Relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: February 18, 2021.
Walter Mugdan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2021-03775 Filed 2-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P