[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48274-48276]
[FR Doc No: 2019-19879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0681]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River, Florence, AL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary Special Local
Regulation for all navigable waters of the Tennessee River, extending
the entire width of the river, from mile marker (MM) 254.0 to 258.0.
This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters near Florence, AL, during a Triathlon on September 22,
2019. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. through 9 a.m. on September
22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0681 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Third Class

Benjamin Gardner, MSD Nashville, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 615-736-
5421, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it would be impractical. It would be
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish the Special
Local Regulation by September 22, 2019 and lack sufficient time to
request and respond to comments within a reasonable time.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to establish a Special Local Regulation associated
with the Renaissance Man Triathlon by September 22, 2019.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
Renaissance Man Triathlon will be a safety concern for participants.
This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the Special Local Regulation
zone during this time period.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a Special Local Regulation from 6 a.m.
through 9 a.m. on September 22, 2019. The Special Local Regulation will
cover all navigable waters from MM. 254.0-258.0 being used by
participants in the Renaissance Man Triathlon. The duration of the
regulated area is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters while the swim event is
taking place. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
special local regulationwithout obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the marine event. The Special Local
Regulation will only impact four miles of the Tennessee River for three
hours on one day.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
special local regulation may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a special local regulation lasting only
3 hours that will prohibit entry on the Tennessee River from mile
marker 254.0-258.0.
    It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L61in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. A Memorandum for the Record supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SPECIAL LOCAL REGULATIONS/REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  100.T08-0681 to read as follows:

Sec.  100T08-0681  Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River, Florence
Alabama.

100T08-0681 Special Local Regulation; Tennessee River, Florence
Alabama.

    (a) Location. The Tennessee River from 254.0 to 258.0 extending
from bank to bank within the river.
    (b) Periods of enforcement. This Special Local Regulation will be
enforced from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on September 22, 2019.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  100.35 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley
(COTP) or designated personnel. Moreover, persons or vessels desiring
to enter into or pass through the special local regulated area must
request permission from the COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM radio channel 16 or
phone at 1-800-253-7465.
    (2) Persons and vessels permitted to deviate from the special local
regulated area requirements as well as enter the restricted area must
transit at the slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful directions
issued by the COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a designated representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Sector Ohio Valley or a
designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the special local
regulation, as well as any changes in the dates and times of
enforcement.

    Dated: September 4, 2019.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2019-19879 Filed 9-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8005]
[DOCID:fr15fe06-132]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549

Extension:
    Form 12b-25; SEC File No. 270-71; OMB Control No. 3235-0058

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget the request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    The purpose of Form 12b-25 under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 is to provide notice to the Commission and the marketplace that a
public company will be unable to timely file a required periodic
report. If all filing conditions are met, the company is granted an
automatic filing extension. The information required is filed on
occasion and is mandatory. All information is provided to the public
for review. Publicly held companies file Form 12b-25. Approximately
7,799 issuers fileForm 12b-25 and it takes approximately 2.5 hours per
response for a total of 19,498 burden hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503; or an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments
must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

     Dated: February 6, 2006
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2099 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82995-82998]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28121]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2020-0620; FRL-10017-81-Region 7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Removal of Control of Emissions From
Solvent Cleanup Operations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Missouri on January 15, 2019, and supplemented by letter on
June 14, 2019. Missouri requests that the EPA remove a rule related to
control of emissions from the solvent cleanup operations in the Kansas
City, Missouri area from its SIP. This removal does not have an adverse
effect on air quality. The EPA's proposed approval of this rule
revision is in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2020-0620to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written
Comments'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Stone, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Quality Planning Branch, 11201
Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-
7714; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. What is being addressed in this document?
III. Background
IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP revision request?
    A. 10 CSR 10-2.215 Applied to Existing Sources
    B. 10 CSR 10-2.215 was Expected To Be Solely Applicable to the
Ford Motor Company's Kansas City Assembly Plant
    C. 10 CSR 10-2.215 Does Not Reduce VOC Emissions and May Be
Removed From the SIP
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is the EPA taking?
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2020-
0620 at https://www.regulations.gov. 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 https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. What is Being Addressed in this Document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve the removal of 10 Code of State
Regulations (CSR) 10-2.215, Control of Emissions from Solvent Cleanup
Operations, from the Missouri SIP.
    According to the June 14, 2019 letter from the Missouri Department
of Natural Resources, available in the docket for this proposed action,
Missouri rescinded the rule because there are no sources subject to the
rule, and the rule is no longer necessary for attainment and
maintenance of the 1979, 1997, or 2008 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone.

III. Background

    The EPA established a 1-hour ozone NAAQS in 1971. 36 FR 8186 (April
30, 1971). On March 3, 1978, the EPA designated Clay, Platte and
Jackson counties (hereinafter referred to in this document as the
``Kanas City Area'') in nonattainment of the 1971 1-hour ozone
NAAQS,\1\ as required by the CAA Amendments of 1977. 43 FR 8962 (March
3, 1978). On February 8, 1979, the EPA revised the 1-hour ozone NAAQS,
referred to as the 1979 ozone NAAQS. 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). On
February 20, 1985, the EPA notified Missouri that the SIP was
substantially inadequate (hereinafter referred to as the ``SIP Call'')
to attain the 1-hour ozone NAAQS in the Kansas City Area. See 50 FR
26198 (July 25, 1985).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Missouri's June 14, 2019 letter incorrectly states that the
Kansas City area was designated as a nonattainment area for the 1979
ozone NAAQS in 1978.

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

    To address the SIP Call, Missouri submitted an attainment
demonstration on May 21, 1986, and volatile organic compound (VOC)
control regulations on December 18, 1987. See 54 FR 10322 (March 13,
1989) and 54 FR 46232 (November 2, 1989). The EPA subsequently approved
the revised control strategy for the Kansas City Area. See id.
    The EPA redesignated the Kansas City Area to attainment of the 1979
1-hour ozone standard and approved the ozone maintenance plan on July
23, 1992. 57 FR 27939 (June 23, 1992). Pursuant to section 175A of the
CAA, the first 10-year maintenance period for the 1-hour ozone standard
began on July 23, 1992, the effective date of the redesignation
approval.
    In 1995, the Kansas City area violated the 1979 1-hour ozone
standard. Missouri revised the control strategy and contingency
measures in the maintenance plan, which was approved on June 24, 2002.
67 FR 20036 (April 24, 2002). The revised control strategy included a
newly promulgated RACT rule, 10 CSR 10-2.215, Control of Emissions from
Solvent Cleanup Operations.
    On April 30, 2004, the EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register stating the 1979 ozone NAAQS would no longer apply (i.e.,
would be revoked) for an area one year after the effective date of the
area's designation for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. 69 FR 23951 (April 30,
2004). The Kansas City Area was designated as an unclassifiable area
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, effective June 15, 2004. See id.
However, on May 3, 2005, EPA published a final rule designating the
Kansas City Area as an attainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
based on new monitoring data. See 70 FR 22801 (May 3, 2005). The
effective date of the revocation of the 1979 1-hour ozone standard for
the Kansas City Area was June 15, 2005. See 70 FR 44470 (August 3,
2005). Missouri achieved the required maintenance of the 1979 1-hour
ozone standard in 2014.
    As noted above, 10 CSR 10-2.215, Control of Emissions from Solvent
Cleanup Operations, was approved into the Missouri SIP as a RACT rule,
effective May 24, 2002. 67 FR 20036 (April 24, 2002). At the time that
the rule was approved into the SIP, 10 CSR 10-2.215 applied to any
person in the Clay, Jackson and Platte Counties in Missouri that
performs or allows the performance of any cleaning operation involving
the use of a VOC solvent or solvent solution that emitted over 500
pounds per day of VOCs. The rule stated that once a source was subject
to the rule, it would remain subject to the rule even if actual
emissions drop below the 500 pounds per day of VOCs applicability
level.
    The rule also contains a list of operations that are exempt from
the rule:
    1. Cold cleaner;
    2. Open top vapor degreaser;
    3. Conveyorized cold cleaners;
    4. Conveyorized vapor degreaser;
    5. Nonmanufacturing area cleaning. Nonmanufacturing areas include
cafeterias, laboratories, pilot facilities, restrooms, and office
buildings;
    6. Cleaning operations for which there has been made a best
available control technology, reasonably available control technology,
or lowest achievable emission rate determination; and
    7. Cleaning operations which are subject to the Aerospace National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Standards source
category, under 40 CFR part 63, subpart GG.
    By letter dated January 15, 2019, Missouri requested that the EPA
remove 10 CSR 10-2.215 from the SIP. Section 110(l) of the CAA
prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision that interferes with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The
State supplemented its SIP revision with a June 14, 2019 letter in
order to address the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.

IV. What is the EPA's analysis of Missouri's SIP revision request?

A. 10 CSR 10-2.215 Applied to Existing Sources

    In its June 14, 2019 letter, Missouri states that it intended its
RACT rules, such as 10 CSR 10-2.215, to solely apply to existing
sources in accordance with section 172(c)(1) of the CAA.\2\ Missouri
states that although the applicability section of 10 CSR 10-2.215
states that the rule applies to all persons who perform or allow the
performance of cleaning operations that emit over 500 pounds per day of
VOCs in Clay, Jackson and Platte Counties, the rule applied only to
existing sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA agrees with Missouri's interpretation of CAA section
172(c)(1) in regards to whether RACT is required for existing
sources, but also notes that the State regulation establishing RACT
may apply to new sources as well, dependent upon the State
regulation's language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA notes that the rule required a 30% reduction in plant-wide
industrial VOC cleaning solvent emissions by May 1, 2003, based on
emissions in 1997 and 1998. This provides support for Missouri's
assertion that the rule was intended to apply to existing sources,
despite the language in the rule that states that it is applicable to
any solvent cleaning operation in Clay, Jackson and Platte counties
that emit VOCs above the applicability threshold.

B. 10 CSR 10-2.215 Was Expected To Be Solely Applicable to the Ford
Motor Company's Kansas City Assembly Plant

    Missouri states that at the time of the rule's promulgation, the
state expected that the rule would apply to a single existing source,
the Ford Motor Company's Kansas City Assembly Plant (hereinafter ``Ford
facility''). Missouri states that this is supported by a fiscal note in
its rulemaking record that indicates that the rule applies to one
automobile manufacturer.
    The EPA has reviewed the April 16, 2001 Missouri Register, Vol. 26,
No. 8, available in the docket for this proposed action, and notes that
the Ford Motor Company commented on Missouri's promulgation of the rule
concerning the costs of the rule. In addition, Missouri's 1998 revision
to the Kansas City Maintenance SIP for the 1979 Ozone NAAQS
(hereinafter ``1998 Revision''), available in the docket for today's
action, indicates that one major source that would be affected by the
solvent cleaning regulation was the Ford Motor Company in Kansas City.
The 1998 Revision states that the Ford facility reported 909.5 tons of
VOC emissions in 1994, and estimated that the rule would reduce VOC
emissions by 30%, or 272.8 tons per year in the Kansas City area. Based
upon Missouri's rulemaking history associated with promulgation of 10
CSR 10-2.215, and the 1998 Revision, the EPA agrees that the Ford
facility was the only source expected to be subject to the rule.

C. 10 CSR 10-2.215 Does Not Reduce VOC Emissions and May Be Removed
From the SIP

    The EPA notes that the text of 10 CSR 10-2.215 states that once a
source exceeds the applicability level of 500 pounds of VOC emissions
per day, it remains subject to the rule even if actual emissions drop
below the applicability level of the rule. However, this does not
prohibit Missouri from rescinding the rule if it can demonstrate that
the rescission of the rule does not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(RFP), or any other applicable requirement of the CAA, as required by
Section 110(l) of the CAA.
    The EPA has reviewed the Ford facility's 2008 Operating Permit
number OP2008-044, and the 2015 Operating

Permit number OP2014-035, available in the docket for this proposed
action. The operating permits do not list any solvent cleaning
operations at the facility that are subject to 10 CSR 10-2.215, Control
of Emissions From Solvent Metal Cleaning, and state that the rule is
not applicable to the Ford facility. The Operating Permit states that
emission point (EP) 42's miscellaneous solvent use related to
maintenance activities including non-manufacturing area cleaning,
facility painting, and other activities at the facility is exempt
pursuant to 10 CSR 2.215(1)(C). 10 CSR 2.215(1)(C) exempts
nonmanufacturing area cleaning which include cafeterias, laboratories,
pilot facilities, restrooms, and office buildings.
    The documentation submitted by Missouri provides evidence that at
least at the time that 10 CSR 10-2.215 was proposed, both Missouri and
Ford expected that the Ford facility would be subject to the rule, and
Missouri expected that the Ford facility would be the only source
subject to the rule. According to Ford's Emissions Inventory
Questionnaire (EIQ), VOC emissions from EP-42 were 428.36 tons in 1997,
and 239.46 tons in 1998. However, before 10 CSR 10-2.215 was
promulgated, Ford reduced its VOC emissions from EP-42 to 8.18 tons in
2000, and emissions from EP-42 have since remained well below the
applicability threshold of the rule, such that Ford was never subject
to the rule's requirements. Therefore, the EPA agrees that the rule
does not limit or reduce emissions of VOCs from any source in the
Kansas City Area.
    Missouri's June 14, 2019 letter states that any new sources or
major modifications of existing sources are subject to new source
review (NSR) permitting. Under NSR, a new major source or major
modification of an existing source with a (potential to emit) PTE of
250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any NAAQS pollutant is required to
obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit when the
area is in attainment or unclassifiable, which requires an analysis of
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) in addition to an air quality
analysis and an additional impacts analysis. Sources with a PTE greater
than 100 tpy, but less than 250 tpy, are required to obtain a minor
permit in accordance with Missouri's New Source Review permitting
program, which is approved into the SIP.\3\ The EPA agrees with this
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's latest approval of Missouri's NSR permitting program
rule was published in the Federal Register on October 11, 2016. 81
FR 70025.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missouri's June 14, 2019 letter also includes information
concerning ozone air quality in the Kansas City area from 1996 through
2018 that indicates a downward trend in monitored ozone design values.
Missouri states that despite promulgation of more stringent ozone NAAQS
in 1997, 2008 and 2015, the Kansas City area continues to monitor
attainment. The EPA has confirmed that certified ambient air quality
data for Kansas City Area as monitored at the Rocky Creek, Clay County
state and local air monitoring station is compliant with the most
recent ozone standard- the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\4\ The 2016-2018 design
value for that monitor is 70 parts per million.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In accordance 40 CFR 50.19(b), the 2015 8-hour primary
O3 NAAQS is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site
when 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-
hour average O3 concentration is less than or equal to
0.070 ppm, as determined in accordance with appendix U to 40 CFR
part 50.
    \5\ The monitoring data was reported, quality assured, and
certified in accordance with the requirements set forth in 40 CFR
part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires RACT for
existing sources. Because Missouri has demonstrated that removal of 10
CSR 10-2.215 will not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS, RFP \6\
or any other applicable requirement of the CAA because there are no
existing sources that are subject to the rule, and therefore removal of
the rule will not cause VOC emissions to increase, the EPA proposes to
approve removal of 10 CSR 10-2.215 from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ RFP is not applicable to the Kansas City Area because the
area is in attainment of all applicable ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The State 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 this SIP revision from February 28,
2018, to April 5, 2018 and received five comments from the EPA that
related to Missouri's lack of an adequate demonstration that the rule
could be removed from the SIP in accordance with section 110(l) of the
CAA. Missouri's June 14, 2019 letter addressed the EPA's comments. In
addition, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the
CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

VI. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to approve Missouri's request to rescind 10
CSR 2.215 from the SIP because the rule applied to a single source that
has permanently ceased operations and because the rule was not
applicable to additional sources, it no longer serves to reduce
emissions. Additionally, the maintenance period for the 1979 ozone
NAAQS for the Kansas City Area ended in 2014 and the area continues to
monitor attainment of the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. Any new sources or major
modifications of existing sources in the Kansas City Area are subject
to NSR permitting. We are processing this as a proposed action because
we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking
will occur after consideration of any comments.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. As described in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below, the EPA is proposing to
remove provisions of the EPA-Approved Missouri Regulation from the
Missouri State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA) because this rulemaking does not
involve technical standards; 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).
    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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: December 14, 2020.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
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 removing
the entry ``10-2.215'' under the heading ``Chapter 2--Air Quality
Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the Kansas City
Metropolitan Area''.

[FR Doc. 2020-28121 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 192)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56700-56701]
[DOCID:fr04oc07-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28980; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-071-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Aircraft Industries, a.s. (Type
Certificate No. G24EU Formerly Held by LETECK[Eacute] Z[Aacute]VODY
a.s. and LET Aeronautical Works) Model L-13 Blanik Gliders

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted by the discovery
of cracks on L13 BLANIK sailplanes in zones where the forward and
aft control sticks are attached to the connecting rod, designated as
``control bridge'' in the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues
(IPC). If left uncorrected, cracks could propagate and lead to
failure of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of the
sailplane.

    The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address
the unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5,
2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
; or in person at the Docket Management Facility

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-
28980; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-071-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We

will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2007-0212 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted by the discovery
of cracks on L13 BLANIK sailplanes in zones where the forward and
aft control sticks are attached to the connecting rod, designated as
``control bridge'' in the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues
(IPC). If left uncorrected, cracks could propagate and lead to
failure of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of the
sailplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires an inspection
of the control bridge to detect cracks and replacement, if
necessary. In addition, this AD requires an update of the aircraft
Maintenance Manual (MM) to incorporate repetitive inspections of the
control bridge.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    LET Aircraft Industries, a.s. has issued Mandatory Bulletin MB No.:
L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 190 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $30,400, or $160 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 7 work-hours and require parts costing $2,000, for a cost of
$2,560 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Aircraft Industries, a.s. (Type Certificate No. G24EU formerly held
by LETECK[Eacute] Z[Aacute]VODY a.s. and LET Aeronautical Works):
Docket No. FAA-2007-28980; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-071-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 5, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model L-13 Blanik gliders, all serial
numbers, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted by the discovery
of cracks on L13 BLANIK sailplanes in zones where the forward and
aft control sticks are attached to the connecting rod, designated as
``control bridge'' in the relevant Illustrated Parts Catalogues
(IPC). If left uncorrected, cracks could propagate and lead to
failure of the connecting rod with subsequent loss of control of the
sailplane.
    For the reasons described above, this AD requires an inspection
of the control bridge to detect cracks and replacement, if
necessary. In addition, this AD requires an update of the aircraft
Maintenance Manual (MM) to incorporate repetitive inspections of the
control bridge.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 3 months after the effective date of this AD
and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months,
inspect the control bridge for cracks. Follow the procedures in LET
Aircraft Industries, a.s. Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated
May 22, 2007, except use a 10x magnifier and do a dye penetrant
inspection following the procedures in chapter 5, section 5, of FAA
Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B CHG 1, dated September 27, 2001.
    (2) If cracks are found during any inspection in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install a new control
bridge Dwg. No. (part number (P/N)) A740 370 N or Dwg. No. (P/N)
A401 001N following the procedures in LET Aircraft Industries, a.s.
Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:
    (1) The service information requires a visual inspection with a
6x magnifier. We are requiring a dye penetrant inspection and a 10x
magnifier to detect cracks that could go undetected using only a 6x
magnifier.
    (2) The MCAI requires updating the maintenance manuals to add
``type A based'' repetitive inspections of the control bridge. Since
the maintenance manual is only one way of establishing a maintenance
program, the only way we can mandate these repetitive inspections is
through an AD action.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Greg Davison, Glider Program Manager, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2007-0212, dated August 7, 2007; and LET Aircraft Industries, a.s.
Mandatory Bulletin MB No.: L13/105a, dated May 22, 2007, for related
information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on September 28, 2007.
James E. Jackson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-19619 Filed 10-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79279-79283]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31662]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0497; FRL-9940-17-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas; Control
of Air Pollution From Nitrogen Compounds State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
by the State of Texas through the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) on July 10, 2015. The Texas SIP submission revises 30
Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117 rules for control of
nitrogen compounds to assist the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) moderate
nonattainment area (NAA) in attaining the 2008 eight-hour ozone
(O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2015-0497, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions.
     Email: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail or delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Branch
(6MM-AA), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Direct comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0497.
The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and made available online at
www.regulations.gov. The EPA includes any personal information
provided, unless a comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit any information
electronically that is considered CBI or any other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. The www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
one's identity or contact information unless it is provided in the body
of a comment. If a comment is emailed directly to the EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, then the sender's email address will
automatically be captured and included as part of the public docket
comment and made available on the Internet. If a comment is submitted
electronically, then the EPA recommends that one's name and other
contact information be included in the body of the comment, and with
any disk or CD-ROM submitted. If the EPA cannot read a particular
comment due to technical difficulties and is unable to contact for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider the comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment will be considered the official comment
with multimedia submissions and should include all discussion points
desired. The EPA will generally not consider a comment or its contents
submitted outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional information on submitting
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the EPA
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available at either location
(e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James E. Grady,<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with Mr. Grady or Mr. Bill Deese at (214) 665-
7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' means ``the EPA.''

Table of Contents

I. Background on DFW 2008 Eight-Hour O3 NAA Designation
and Classification

II. Background on Chapter 117 Proposed Rule Revisions
III. Evaluation of Texas' Proposed Chapter 117 NOX
Control SIP
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background on DFW 2008 Eight-Hour O3 NAA Designation and
Classification

    On March 27, 2008, the EPA revised the primary and secondary
O3 standard to a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
Promulgation of a NAAQS triggers a requirement for the EPA to designate
areas as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable, and to classify
the NAAs at the time of designation.
    On May 21, 2012, the EPA established initial area designations for
most areas of the country with respect to the 2008 primary and
secondary eight-hour O3 NAAQS. The EPA published two rules
addressing final implementation \1\ and air quality designations.\2\
The implementation rule established classifications, associated
attainment deadlines, and revoked the 1997 O3 standards for
transportation conformity purposes. The designation rule finalized the
NAA boundaries for areas that did not meet the 75 ppb standard.
Furthermore, the finalized boundaries were classified according to the
severity of their O3 air quality problems as determined by
each area's design value.\3\ The O3 classification
categories were defined as Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or
Extreme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 77 FR 30160 ``Implementation of the 2008 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Nonattainment Area
Classifications Approach, Attainment Deadlines and Revocation of the
1997 Ozone Standards for Transportation Conformity Purposes.''
    \2\ See 77 FR 30088, ``Air Quality Designations for the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.''
    \3\ The air quality design value for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
the three-year average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum
eight-hour average ozone concentration. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix
I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective July 20, 2012, the DFW 2008 eight-hour O3 NAA
was classified as moderate, consisting of ten counties: Collin, Dallas,
Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and Wise
County. With the exception of Wise County, all of these counties were
designated as nonattainment with a serious classification under the
1997 O3 standard. Although the NAA was most recently
classified as moderate, the first nine counties are still required to
meet their more stringent serious classification requirements
previously designated under the 1997 O3 standard. Wise
County, however, is required to meet the moderate classification
requirements since it is newly designated as nonattainment for the DFW
area.\4\ Previously, Wise County was classified as an attainment area
and was exempt from the O3 NAA requirements under the 1997
eight-hour O3 standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In pursuant to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit ruling in favor of the EPA's inclusion
of Wise County in the DFW 2008 eight-hour ozone nonattainment area
as lawful (see USCA Case #12-1309).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States are required to adopt control measures that implement
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) on major sources of
NOX emissions.\5\ The major source emission threshold level
for the first nine counties (Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson,
Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, and Tarrant) remains at a potential to emit
(PTE) of fifty tons per year (tpy) NOX based on its serious
classification under the 1997 standard. Wise County major source
threshold is 100 tpy NOX based on the moderate
classification requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA is not making a determination that the TCEQ rules
included in these revisions will meet the RACT requirements of the
CAA section 182(b) for the 2008 O3 NAAQS. The EPA will
make that review in a separate action. The EPA is only finding that
these rule changes will strengthen the SIP by achieving
NOX reductions in the DFW NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background on Chapter 117 Proposed Rule Revisions

    On July 10, 2015 the EPA received, the TCEQ submitted rule
revisions to 30 TAC, Chapter 117 ``Control of Air Pollution from
Nitrogen Compounds.'' The State revised Chapter 117 for all major
sources of NOX in the 2008 DFW O3 NAA for the
implementation of RACT requirements in all counties as required by CAA,
section 172(c)(1) and section 182(f). The state previously adopted
Chapter 117 NOX rules for sources in the DFW area as part of
the SIP submitted on May 30, 2007, for the 1997 eight-hour
O3 standard. The EPA approved those rules on December 8,
2008.\6\ The scope of the Chapter 117 rule revisions implement the
following: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 73 FR 73562.
    \7\ This is not an exhaustive list of changes to the 30 TAC
Chapter 117 rules. For a complete summary of all Chapter 117
sections associated with this SIP revision, please refer to the
Technical Support Document (TSD), ``30 Texas Administrative Code
(TAC) Chapter 117 Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen
Compounds,'' a copy of which is posted in the docket of this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Add NOX emission limits and control
requirements to major sources in newly designated Wise County.
     Revoke an exemption for utility turbines and auxiliary
steam boilers installed after November 15, 1992 in the DFW area;
     Provide compliance flexibility to affected units in all
areas covered by Chapter 117 for owners or operators of boilers and
process heaters used on a temporary basis (<60 calendar days);
     Repeal certain major source industrial rules and utility
rules for the DFW area that are now obsolete due to the passing of
compliance dates;
     Add compliance schedules for the new or revised RACT rules
and add compliance dates for sources that become subject to these rules
after the initial compliance date;
     Add definitions to reflect the change in attainment status
of Wise County;
     Implement work practice standards or operating
requirements
     Update associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements
     Establish exemptions
    Table 2 contains a list of the sections of Chapter 117 with adopted
subchapters, divisions, and key sections with modifications associated
with the July 10, 2015 DFW 2008 eight-hour O3 SIP submittal.

  Table 2--Description and Sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117 Proposed for
                              Modification
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                            Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter A: Definitions..............  117.10.
Subchapter B, Division 4, DFW Eight-     117.400, 117.403, 117.410,
 Hour O3 NAA Major Sources.               117.423, 117.425, 117.430,
                                          117.435, 117.440, 117.445,
                                          117.450, 117.454, and 117.456.
Subchapter C, Division 4, DFW Eight-     117.1303, 117.1310, 117.1325,
 Hour O3 NAA Utility Electric             117.1335, 117.1340, 117.1345,
 Generation Sources.                      117.1350, and 117.1354.
Subchapter G, Division 1, General        117.8000
 Monitoring and Testing Requirements.
Subchapter H, Division 1, Compliance     117.9030 and 117.9130, 117.9800
 Schedules and Division 2, Compliance     and 117.9810.
 Flexibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 contains a list of the sections of Chapter 117 with adopted
subchapters, divisions, and key sections with new requirements
associated with the July 10, 2015 DFW 2008 eight-hour O3 SIP
submittal.

  Table 3--Description and Sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117 Proposed New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                            Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter B, Division 4, DFW Eight-     117.405, 117.452.
 Hour O3 NAA Major Sources.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Per TCEQ's request, the following sections listed in Table 4 below
will not become a part of the EPA-approved Texas SIP. These rules
pertain mainly to the control of carbon monoxide and ammonia emissions,
which are not O3 precursors and, therefore, not necessary
components of the DFW SIP. The EPA concurs that these rules can remain
outside of the SIP.

  Table 4--Description and Sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117 Not in Texas
                                   SIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                            Sections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously excluded and the TCEQ         117.210(c), 117.225,
 continues to ask that these remain       117.410(d), 117.425,
 outside the SIP.                         117.1110(b), 117.1125,
                                          117.1310(b), and 117.1325.
Adopted new and will not be submitted    117.405(d).
 as a SIP revision.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 5 contains subchapters, divisions, and key sections proposed
for repeal from the SIP by the TCEQ. The TCEQ adopts the repeal of
existing Subchapters B and C in Division 2 as well as sections 117.9010
and 117.9110 of Subchapter H in Division 1 because compliance dates for
sources of NOX subject to these have passed and are now
considered obsolete. Furthermore, sources previously subject are now
required to comply with more stringent rules in existing Subchapter B
and C, Division 4 and in revised sections 117.9030, 117.9130.

  Table 5--Description and Sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 117 Proposed for
                                 Repeal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Description                            Section
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter B, Division 2, DFW O3 NAA     117.200, 117.203, 117.205,
 Major Sources.                           117.210, 117.215, 117.223,
                                          117.225, 117.230, 117.235,
                                          117.240, 117.245, 117.252,
                                          117.254, 117.256.
Subchapter C, Division 2, DFW O3 NAA     117.1100, 117.1103, 117.1105,
 Utility Electric Generation Sources.     117.1110, 117.1115, 117.1120,
                                          117.1125, 117.1135, 117.1140,
                                          117.1145, 117.1152, 117.1154,
                                          117.1156.
Subchapter H, Division 1, Compliance     117.9010, 117.9110.
 Schedules.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A complete summary along with all non-substantive changes
pertaining to reformatting, restructuring, reorganizing, and
administrative revisions will be referenced in the Technical Support
Document (TSD), ``30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 117
Control of Air Pollution from Nitrogen Compounds,'' a copy of which is
posted in the docket of this proposal.

III. Evaluation of Texas' Proposed Chapter 117 NOX Control
SIP

    Please refer to Table 6 for a list of NOX emissions
specifications for major sources in newly designated Wise County. The
new NOX emission limits will assure that each source listed
will not exceed the 75 ppb O3 NAAQS standard.

                                Table 6--NOX Emission Limits for 2008 DFW 8-Hour O3 NAA for Major Sources in Wise County
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Source                          Type                     Capacity                  NOX Limit                       Citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process Heaters.....................  ......................  Max Rated Capacity >=40      0.10 lb/MMBtu;........  117.405(b)(1).
                                                               MMBtu/hr.
                                                              An option..................  or 82 ppmv NOX at 3%    117.405(b)(1).
                                                                                O2 dry basis.
Stationary, Reciprocating Internal    Gas-Fired Rich-Burn...  ...........................  0.50 g/hp-hr..........  117.405(b)(2)(A).
 Combustion Engines.                  Gas-Fired Lean-Burn...  White Superior four-cycle    12.0 g/hp-hr..........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(i)(I).
                                                               units that have been
                                                               placed into service,
                                                               modified, reconstructed,
                                                               or relocated before June
                                                               1, 2015.
                                                              White Superior four-cycle    2.0 g/hp-hr...........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(i)(II).
                                                               units that have been
                                                               placed into service,
                                                               modified, reconstructed,
                                                               or relocated on or after
                                                               June 1, 2015.
                                                              Clark two-cycle units that   12.0 g/hp-hr..........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(ii)(I).
                                                               have been placed into
                                                               service, modified,
                                                               reconstructed, or
                                                               relocated before June 1,
                                                               2015.

                                                              Clark two-cycle units that   2.0 g/hp-hr...........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(ii)(II).
                                                               have been placed into
                                                               service, modified,
                                                               reconstructed, or
                                                               relocated on or after June
                                                               1, 2015.
                                                              Fairbanks Morse MEP two-     4.0 g/hp-hr...........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(iii)(I).
                                                               cycle units that have been
                                                               placed into service,
                                                               modified, reconstructed,
                                                               or relocated before June
                                                               1, 2015.
                                                              Fairbanks Morse MEP two-     2.0 g/hp-hr...........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(iii)(II).
                                                               cycle units that have been
                                                               placed into service,
                                                               modified, reconstructed,
                                                               or relocated on or after
                                                               June 1, 2015.
                                                              All others.................  2.0 g/hp-hr...........  117.405(b)(2)(B)(iv).
Turbines............................  Stationary Gas........  hp rating <=10,000 hp......  0.55 lb/MMBtu.........  117.405(b)(3)(A).
                                                              hp rating >=10,000 hp......  0.15 lb/MMBtu.........  117.405(b)(3)(B).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Various controls for each major source in Wise County are needed to
achieve the required NOX limits. Process heaters are
expected to achieve compliance after installing dry low-NOX
combustors with the proposed 0.10 lb/MMBtu emission specification. Gas-
fired, rich-burn, combustion engines are anticipated to reach
compliance using nonselective catalytic reduction (NSCR) as primary
control technology with air-to-fuel ratio regulators. The addition of a
secondary catalyst module may be required to meet the proposed emission
specification of 0.50 g/hp-hr, for gas-fired, lean-burn, combustion
engines. All other lean-burn engines are estimated to reach compliance
after combustion modifications with the proposed 2.0 g/hp-hr emission
specification. New gas-fired, lean-burn engines can meet the proposed
2.0 g/hp-hr standard without modification or installation of additional
controls.
    It is estimated that the adopted rules will reduce the amount of
NOX in the DFW area by 1.17 tons per day (tpd). The
resulting emission reductions will assist Texas in demonstrating
attainment of the eight-hour O3 standard within the DFW NAA.
As a result, the EPA is proposing to approve the NOX
emission requirements for affected major sources in the DFW NAA.

IV. The EPAs Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the submitted TAC Chapter 117 SIP
revisions into the SIP because they will assist the DFW area into
attainment under the 2008 8-Hour O3 NAAQS by keeping each
emissions source below 75 ppb. The EPA is proposing to approve all
amended, repealed, and new sections of Chapter 117 that are being
submitted as part of this SIP revision. The EPA is not making a
determination that the TCEQ rules included in these revisions will meet
the RACT requirements of the CAA Sec.  182(b) for the 2008
O3 NAAQS. The EPA will make that review in a separate
action. The EPA is only finding that these rule changes will strengthen
the SIP by achieving NOX reductions in the DFW NAA.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this action, the EPA is proposing to include in a final rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference revisions to the Texas regulations as
described in the Proposed Action section above. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents generally available
electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the
EPA Region 6 office.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that states 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 action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Reasonably available control technology, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 8, 2015.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2015-31662 Filed 12-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 123)]
[Notices]
[Page 31024]
[DOCID:fr29jn09-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No 1

June 18, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP09-766-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits Fifth Revised
Sheet No 2400 et al to its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 06/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090616-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-767-000.
    Applicants: Chandeleur Pipe Line Company.
    Description: Chandeleur Pipe Line Co submits Third Revised Sheet 74
et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0023.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-768-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Fifth
Revised Sheet 147 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to
be effective 7/16/09.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 29, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-769-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission. LLC.
    Description: Texas Gas Transmission submits Third Revised Sheet 99A
et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to be effective 6/16/
09.
    Filed Date: 06/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090617-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, June 29, 2009.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15265 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 74549-74551]
[DOCID:fr08de08-98]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59023; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-090]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Enhancements to the Nasdaq Regulation Reconnaissance Service

November 26, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 24, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    Nasdaq proposes to establish fees for an enhancement to the
Regulation Reconnaissance Service, which would provide firms with the
ability to recreate the Nasdaq/CQS order books and trade data by way of
a visual display. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
Nasdaq's Web site, at Nasdaq's principal office, 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, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes to establish a fee for a new enhancement to the
Nasdaq Regulation Reconnaissance Service (``Reg Recon''). Reg Recon is
currently available as an add-on to the Nasdaq Workstation and Weblink
ACT 2.0. Nasdaq is proposing to provide access to the Market Replay
function to Reg Recon subscribers for an additional fee. Market Replay
is a software program developed by Nasdaq, which uses publicly-
available information to recreate and display the Nasdaq/CQS order
books and trade data for any point in time.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Market Replay data is delayed 15 minutes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq currently provides Market Replay for free on a publicly-
accessible Web site as a demonstration of the product. Nasdaq hopes
that vendors will ultimately purchase Market Replay to provide access
to the functionality to their customers, either using the software ``as
is'' or integrating the software into their proprietary displays.
Nasdaq is proposing to provide Reg Recon subscribers an option to
enhance their service with an integrated version of Market Replay.
    Market Replay allows users to reconstruct the market for any
Nasdaq/CQS security, and view trades and quotes at the millisecond
level. In particular, Market Replay allows users to access the
historical market for a particular security by entering a symbol, date,
and timeframe. Subscribers may

view quotes and/or trades in a security for the day and timeframe
requested.
    By way of a scrolling chart, Market Replay displays the National
Best Bid and Offer together with the consolidated trades for the chosen
security in simulated real time. Users are able to zoom in on the chart
and manipulate the chart speed and direction. Users may also filter the
data presented on the chart by market center.\4\ Market Replay can also
provide users with a list of trades that occurred during a user-defined
timeframe, and can calculate price and volume statistics for that
timeframe (i.e., minimum/maximum price, total shares, and Volume
Weighted Average Price).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Currently, Market Replay supports the following market
centers: American Stock Exchange; CBOE Stock Exchange; Chicago Stock
Exchange; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority; International
Securities Exchange; National Stock Exchange; New York Stock
Exchange; NYSE Arca; Philadelphia Stock Exchange; and The NASDAQ
Stock Market. Nasdaq plans to add data for the BATS Exchange and
Boston Stock Exchange in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Market Replay can provide a minimum and maximum National
Best Bid and Offer for a selected timeframe, as well as the minimum and
maximum bid and offer for each exchange trading stock during the
timeframe.
    In addition to providing a useful analytical tool, Nasdaq believes
that firms would find Market Replay helpful in responding to customer
inquiries regarding the price received in a particular trade. In
particular, firms can send to customers a Nasdaq-validated screen shot
of the moment their particular trade occurred, confirming the quality
of the execution.
    Nasdaq proposes to offer Reg Recon subscribers access to the Market
Replay function to [sic] for a fee of $500 per MPID, per month, plus a
fee of $50 per user, per month. The proposed fees will cover the
expense of purchasing the publicly-available data, as well as cover the
costs associated with purchasing the Market Replay software from Nasdaq
Data Products as any vendor must do. The proposed fees will also cover
the costs associated with establishing the service, responding to
customer requests, configuring Nasdaq's systems, programming to user
specifications, and administering the service, among other things.
    Nasdaq notes that the Reg Recon service generally, and the Market
Replay upgrade are entirely optional services. Firms may choose to
purchase Reg Recon or not, and those that choose to purchase it may
then choose to purchase the Market Replay upgrade or not. If a firm
does not perceive that the Reg Recon and Market Replay services are
sufficiently valuable, it will choose not to purchase those services.
2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The amendments proposed
herein will provide Reg Recon subscribers with a useful analytical tool
with which to analyze and understand the historical market for Nasdaq/
CQS securities and assist with researching RegNMS trade-throughs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\8\ in particular, in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility or
system which the Nasdaq operates or controls, and it does not unfairly
discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. Use of the
Market Replay enhancement to Reg Recon is voluntary and the
subscription fees will be imposed on all purchasers equally based on
the level of service selected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fees will cover the costs associated with establishing
the service, responding to customer requests, configuring Nasdaq's
systems, programming to user specifications, and administering the
service, among other things.

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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-NASDAQ-2008-090 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-NASDAQ-2008-090. 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 such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of Nasdaq.
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-NASDAQ-2008-
090 and should be submitted on or before December 29, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading & Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-28957 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P