[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 63224-63228]
[DOCID:fr08no07-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25755]

Operating Limitations at New York LaGuardia Airport; Notice of
Order

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of order.

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

SUMMARY: On August 7, 2007, the FAA proposed amendments to the December
12, 2006, order (the Order) that temporarily limits flight operations
at New York's LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia). Under the Order, the FAA
limited scheduled and unscheduled operations at the airport to prevent
congestion-related delays associated with LaGuardia's limited runway
capacity. The FAA is issuing amendments to the Order as proposed with
little modification.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Komal K. Jain, Office of the Chief

Counsel, Regulations Division, AGC-240, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The FAA's authority to limit the number of flight operations at
LaGuardia is an essential component of the FAA's statutory
responsibilities. The FAA holds broad authority under 49 U.S.C.
40103(b) to regulate the use of the navigable airspace of the United
States. This provision authorizes the FAA to develop plans and policy
for the use of navigable airspace and, by order or rule, to regulate
the use of the airspace as necessary to ensure its efficient use.
    On August 7, 2007, the FAA proposed to modify its December 12,
2006, Order that temporarily limits the flight operations at LaGuardia
pending the promulgation of a long-term regulation to manage congestion
at the airport. 72 FR 44214. The Agency proposed to (1) provide an
approval process for Operating Authorization (OA) transfers for ``day-
of'' carrier substitutions; (2) amend provisions affecting the 80
percent minimum use requirement by adding a waiver for holiday periods
and providing the Administrator greater discretion to suspend the
requirement under certain conditions; and (3) provide a mechanism for
withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons.

I. Background

    LaGuardia's runway capacity cannot accommodate the number of
arrivals and departures that carriers would like to operate without the
development of significant congestion. Until January 1, 2007, the FAA
limited the number of operations at the airport through implementation
of the High Density Rule and the Buy-Sell Rule (or slot rules), 14 CFR
part 93, subparts K and S. In 2000, out of concern over the collateral
effects of the slot rules at LaGuardia on airport access and
competition, Congress included a provision in the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) that
terminated the LaGuardia slot rules as of January 1, 2007.\1\ In
anticipation of the HDR's expiration, the FAA proposed a long-term rule
that would limit the number of scheduled and unscheduled operations at
LaGuardia.\2\ Because the FAA could not complete that rulemaking by
January 1, the FAA issued the Order and adopted temporary limits that
will remain in place until the rulemaking is completed. Without such
operational limitations, the FAA expected severe congestion-related
delays would occur, both at LaGuardia and at other airports throughout
the National Airspace System (NAS) as a result of capacity constraints
at LaGuardia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 U.S.C. 41715(a)(2), enacted by Pub. L. No. 106-181, Sec.
231, 114 Stat. 61, 106-10 (2000).
    \2\ 71 FR 51360 (August 29, 2006); Docket FAA-2006-25709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Order, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits on
scheduled (75) and unscheduled (six) operations at LaGuardia during
peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for
OAs; (3) provides for a lottery to reallocate withdrawn, surrendered or
unallocated OAs; and (4) allows for trades and leases of OAs for
consideration for the duration of the Order.
    On August 7, 2007, the FAA proposed to modify the Order to (1)
provide an approval for OA transfers for ``day-of'' carrier
substitutions; (2) amend provisions affecting the 80 percent minimum
use requirement by adding a waiver for holiday periods and providing
the Administrator greater discretion to suspend the requirement under
certain conditions; and (3) provide a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs
for FAA operational reasons (August 2007 notice). The FAA requested
written comments to its proposed changes. The comment period closed on
September 6, 2007.

II. Discussion of Written Submissions and the Final Order

    In response to a request for written comments, 12 respondents
expressed views on the FAA's proposed amendments to the Order. The
respondents included eight air carriers (American Airlines (American),
US Airways, Delta Air Lines, Northwest Airlines, United Airlines,
jetBlue Airways Corp. (jetBlue), Air Canada, and Pinnacle Airlines
Group (Pinnacle)), three air carrier organizations (Regional Airline
Association (RAA), Air Carrier Association of America (ACAA) and Air
Transport Association of America (ATA)), and the Port Authority of New
York and New Jersey (Port Authority).
    Overall, the commenters supported the FAA's effort to address
concerns that were overlooked or not identified at the time the Order
was issued. Several commenters also raised issues that were beyond the
scope of the proposed amendments, including elimination of the
Perimeter Rule, creation of a buy/sell secondary market, and the
withdrawals of OAs for immediate redistribution to limited incumbents.
The FAA therefore is not responding to those issues. The FAA, however,
has chartered an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to address the
congestion at the New York City area airports, and these issues are
expected to be part of the ARC deliberations. The FAA's discussion of
remaining comments follows.

Secondary Market: Approval Process for ``Day-of'' Transfers

    As discussed in the August 2007 notice, some air carriers have
expressed concerns about the administrative burden associated with
obtaining prior approval from the FAA for OA transfers when making
``day-of'' carrier substitutions between affiliated or regional
carriers under the marketing control of a single air carrier. Due to
the around-the-clock nature of an airline's operations, and the real-
time nature of operational logistics, it is not unusual for an air
carrier to make ``day-of'' flight service substitutions from one
affiliated carrier to another to meet operational needs or to address
schedule disruptions. The FAA recognizes that advance approval of an OA
transfer for these last-minute carrier substitutions is not always
possible, in part because of the coordination required between air
carrier operation centers and scheduling or marketing departments and
because the FAA Slot Administration Office is not open 24 hours a day.
Therefore, it proposed to amend the Order to permit a transfer request
to be submitted for FAA approval up to 72 hours after the actual
operation.
    While the FAA received general support for its efforts to
streamline the reporting burden associated with obtaining approvals for
transfers between marketing carriers and the operating carriers under
their marketing control, several air carriers, ATA and RAA argued that
it did not go far enough. ATA and RAA, among others, would have the FAA
treat these transactions as ``substitutions'' rather than ``transfers''
among commonly owned and affiliated carriers and, therefore, take them
out of the secondary market purview. US Airways further argued that
``once [OAs] are obtained by a carrier, the FAA's only real concern
ought to be ensuring compliance with the minimum usage requirements * *
* [T]racking of which individual carrier is operating under the ``US''
marketing code seems an unnecessary resource drain on both airlines and
the FAA.''
    The FAA recognizes there is a significant paperwork responsibility
associated with the transfer approval process, and is trying to lessen
this burden on carriers while also

maintaining an accurate record of which air carrier is flying under
each OA at any particular time. This is not simply a matter of
monitoring operations for minimum use requirements, as US Airways
suggests. Under this Order, the FAA limits the number of operations
that can occur at LaGuardia and, therefore, has a significant interest
and responsibility in ensuring that only carriers with OAs conduct
flights at the airport during the allocated time periods. Air carriers
may have marketing agreements with many other carriers to operate
flights on their behalf, with varying degrees of scheduling or
operational control. One carrier may even operate for multiple
marketing carriers at the same airport. The FAA monitors operations
through several mechanisms including usage reports, published flight
schedules, and flight plans filed with FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC).
Communication with ATC facilities, including flight plans, require
authorized FAA identifiers and call signs that are unique to the
operating carrier and do not signify information as to the marketing or
selling carrier of the flight. In order for the FAA to have accurate
record detailing which carriers are authorized to operate at the
airport, approval requests for the transfer of OAs are generally
required in advance if they are to be operated by a carrier other than
the holder listed on FAA records. This amendment is adopting a very
limited exception to provide flexibility for ``day-of'' operational
needs.
    However, as requested by US Airways under its comment submission,
the FAA is willing to provide more time for carriers to inform the FAA
of its transfers. Under the Order, the FAA provides carriers five
business days, instead of the proposed 72 hours, to submit requests for
OA transfer approvals for ``day-of'' transfers among commonly owned and
affiliated carriers. This additional time also allows carriers to
submit more transfer approval requests under one cover, thereby
reducing the number of transactions with the FAA.
    As proposed, to support any request, carriers must provide flight
information, including flight number, origin, destination and scheduled
time of operation. While United commented that this is more information
than is required by the FAA under the ``use or lose'' reports, the FAA
distinguishes the two reporting requirements. Under this provision, in
order to approve an after-the-fact transfer request, the FAA must
verify that the substitution from one carrier to another resulted from
the express need to conduct a specific flight. Without the above
mentioned information, the FAA could not validate the request.

Minimum Usage Requirements and Waivers

Holiday Waiver
    In response to the January 9, 2007, petition submitted by ATA,\3\
the FAA proposed to treat as used any OA held by a carrier at LaGuardia
on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the
period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January. Most
respondents supported the amendment, but Pinnacle and US Airways, asked
that this provision be expanded to apply on the 4th of July, Memorial
Day and Labor Day. JetBlue and ACAA, on the other hand, did not believe
that waivers should be provided for any holiday periods. They argued
that the FAA should ``encourage the efficient use of scarce air traffic
system capacity'', and if holders of OAs do not fully maximize use of
their OAs during holidays, they should be returned to the FAA for
temporary redistribution. ACAA would further have the temporary OAs be
made available to limited incumbents first.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Docket FAA-2006-25755.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA first rejects the notion that the holiday waiver to the
minimum use requirements be extended to additional days. In
establishing the 80% minimum use requirement, the FAA specifically
accounted for days in the year where there are drops in service, for
planned and unplanned events, including holidays. The FAA, however, has
traditionally provided the waiver for the days of Thanksgiving Day, the
Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24
through the first Saturday in January because of reduced passenger
demand at all airports and because they fall within the same 2-month
reporting cycle for usage. Therefore, a majority of carriers would not
meet the minimum requirement of 80 percent without potentially
operating uneconomic flights.
    To the extent that there are carriers that hold OAs during holidays
and do not anticipate full usage and there are other carriers who
desire OAs during those same days, the FAA suggests carriers avail
themselves of the secondary leasing market. The FAA is not compelled to
increase our management of OA usage and allocations under the Order
during holiday periods. The Agency fully believes that a viable and
practical solution already exists, and it urges carriers to take
advantage of the leasing market.
Start-up Waiver
    The FAA did not receive any adverse comments to the proposed
amendment to waive the minimum use requirement for 120 days following
the allocation of an OA by lottery. The provision is included in this
amendment.
Administrator's Waiver Authority
    Under the Order, the FAA Administrator can ``waive the 80 percent
usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable
condition which is beyond the control of the carrier and which exists
for a period of 5 consecutive days or more.'' The FAA proposed the
Administrator be given greater discretion to issue a waiver if the
impact of a particular event is five consecutive days versus the
duration of the event existing for more than five days. This provision
recognizes that carrier operations may require several days to return
to normal after significant disruptions to service.
    Commenters supported this proposal, and the provision is included
in this amendment.

Reversion and Withdrawal of Operating Authorizations

    The Order currently does not provide a process for the FAA to
reduce flight operations at the airport to meet operational needs or to
recognize reductions in available airport capacity. The FAA, therefore,
proposed to include such a mechanism and use a weighted lottery system.
The Agency received a number of comments in response.
    To the extent that certain respondents would have the FAA further
refine this provision and have it affect operations at other airports
in the New York area or commit to reducing the number of reservations
made available to non-scheduled operators before scheduled operators,
the FAA notes that these comments are outside the scope of this
proposal and, therefore, will not be addressed.
    Some carriers opposed the weighted lottery system. Delta argued
that the proposal is ``unfair to carriers that operate substantial
levels of service, and have made significant investments in
operations.'' The FAA believes, however, that through the following
explanation, Delta and others will have a better understanding of why
the FAA continues to support the proposal and has decided to include it
in the Order subject to one modification related to the baseline
protection of 20 OAs.
    Under the weighted lottery system, a lottery would be implemented
each time

we needed to withdraw on OA. All air carriers holding OAs at the
airport would be included, regardless of what period of the day needed
to be depeaked. In this way, any air carrier operating at LaGuardia
assumes the risk, based on its share of operations at the airport, of
having OAs withdrawn. Weights will be established based on the
proportionate share of OAs the carrier holds at the airport. For
example, if an air carrier has a weight equal to 30, the carrier's name
will be placed in a random draw 30 times. The random draw by an FAA
representative would establish the order in which carriers need to
relinquish OAs. While there is more of a likelihood that a carrier with
greater operations at LaGuardia will be randomly chosen first, any air
carrier holding OAs, including carriers with limited presence at the
airport, as explained below, could be chosen. Carriers would relinquish
two OAs in each sequence until the FAA's reduced level of operations by
half-hour or hour, as appropriate, has been achieved.
    The FAA proposed that a withdrawal would not be made from any
carrier if the result would reduce its holdings to less than 20 OAs on
any weekday. However, upon reconsideration, the FAA believes that every
carrier serving LaGuardia should carry the potential burden,
proportional to its share of OAs, of a withdrawal. As such, American is
correct in its assertion that the FAA should not provide a 20 OA
baseline protection from potential withdrawal.
    The following illustrates how weights would be assigned to each air
carrier in the lottery. On a weekly basis, there are a total of 6,750
available OAs at LaGuardia. Assume Carrier A has 4,000 OAs, Carrier B
has 2,000 OAs; and Carrier C has 750 OAs.
    Carrier A's share is 4,000/6,750 = .593.
    Carrier B's share is 2,000/6,750 = .296.
    Carrier C's share is 750/6,750 = .11.
    Thus, the weight for each carrier rounded to the higher whole
number is:
    Carrier A = .593(100) = 60.
    Carrier B = .296(100) = 30.
    Carrier C = .11(100) = 11.
    For these purposes, the FAA will consider commonly owned and
affiliated carriers to be single air carriers.
    Air Canada argued that their possible inclusion in a lottery
violates the Air Transport Agreement between the Government of Canada
and the Government of the United States and the 2005 US-Canada Open
Skies Agreement in which the U.S. government agreed to provide Canadian
carriers with a base level of 42 slots (OAs) at LaGuardia in the summer
and winter seasons. The FAA has reviewed these agreements and believes
that, as long as the Canadian carriers are subject to the same, non-
discriminatory regulations as U.S. operator, no violation of the
agreements would occur. This withdrawal system is only to be used in
the event of reduced capacity at the airport. The FAA would not be able
to engage this mechanism and draw down OA holdings for purposes such as
providing U.S. or foreign airlines with OAs for international services
or providing OAs for ``new entrants.'' Any OA that is withdrawn or
temporarily suspended, if reallocated, will be reallocated to the
carrier form which it was taken, provided that the carrier continues to
operate scheduled service at LaGuardia.

III. Conclusion: The Amended Order

    On August 7, 2007, the FAA proposed amendment to the Order, and
solicited written views on the FAA's tentative determination to provide
an approval process for OA transfers for ``day-of'' carrier
substitutions; to amend provisions affecting the 80 percent minimum use
requirement; and to provide a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA
operational reasons. After considering the responses, the FAA has
determined to amend the Order and adopt the proposal with two minor
modifications. The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety.

A. Scheduled Operations

    With respect to scheduled operations at LaGuardia:
    1. The final Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at
LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday.
    2. The final Order takes effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire
at the first change of scheduling season, as defined in 14 CFR, part
93, subpart B, occurring no less than 90 days after the issuance of a
final rule regulating congestion at LaGuardia.
    3. The FAA will assign operating authority to conduct an arrival or
a departure at LaGuardia during the affected hours to the air carrier
that holds equivalent slot or slot exemption authority under the High
Density Rule of FAA slot exemption rules as of January 1, 2007; to the
primary marketing air carrier in the case of AIR-21 small hub/nonhub
airport slot exemptions; or to the air carrier operating the flights as
of January 1, 2007, in the case of a slot held by a non carrier. The
FAA will not assign operating authority under the final Order to any
person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier
with appropriate economic authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129 or 135.
The Chief Counsel of the FAA will be the final decision maker regarding
the initial assignment of Operating Authorizations.
    4. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign
an identification number to each Operating Authorization.
    5. An air carrier can lease or trade an Operating Authorization to
another carrier for any consideration, not to exceed the duration of
the Order. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be
submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile
(202) 267-7277 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and must come from a
designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and
approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of
the transaction. However, the FAA will approve transfers between
carriers under the same marketing control up to 5 business days after
the actual operation. This post-transfer approval is limited to
accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the
scheduled operation.
    6. Each air carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward
in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all
Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of
the Operating Authorizations actually operated for each day of the two-
month reporting period within 14 days after the last day of the two-
month reporting period beginning January 1 and every two months
thereafter. Any Operating Authorization not used at least 80 percent of
the time over a two-month period will be withdrawn by the FAA except:

    A. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held
by an air carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following
Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first
Saturday in January.
    B. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization
obtained by an air carrier through a lottery under paragraph 7 for
the first 120 days after allocation in the lottery.
    C. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80 percent usage
requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable
condition which is beyond the control of the air carrier and which
affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or
more.

    7. In the event that Operating Authorizations are withdrawn for
non-use, surrendered to the FAA or are

unassigned, the FAA will determine whether any of the available
Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. If so, the FAA will
conduct a lottery using the provisions specified under 14 CFR 93.225.
The FAA may retime an Operating Authorization prior to reallocation in
order to address operational needs. When the final Order expires, any
Operating Authorizations reassigned under this paragraph, except those
assigned to new entrants or limited incumbents, will revert to the FAA
for reallocation according to the reallocation mechanism prescribed in
the final rule that succeeds the final Order.
    8. If the FAA determines that a reduction in the number of
allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational
needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a
weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced
hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will
provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by
operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or
temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the air
carrier from which it was taken, provided that the air carrier
continues to operate scheduled service at LaGuardia.
    9. The FAA will enforce the final Order through an enforcement
action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). An air carrier
that is not a small business as defined in the Small Business Act, 15
U.S.C. 632, would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for
every day that it violates the limits set forth in the final Order. An
air carrier that is a small business as defined in the Small Business
Act would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for every day
that it violates the limits set forth in the final Order. The FAA also
could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C.
46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any air carrier from violating the
terms of the final Order.

B. Unscheduled Operations: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Unscheduled operations are operations other than those
regularly conducted by an air carrier between LaGaurdia and another
service point. Unscheduled operations include general aviation,
public aircraft, military, charter, ferry, and positioning flights.
Helicopter operations are excluded from the reservation requirement.
Reservations for unscheduled flights operating under visual flight
rules (VFR) are granted when the aircraft receives clearance from
air traffic control to land or depart LaGuardia. Reservations for
unscheduled VFR flights are not included in the limits for
unscheduled operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to unscheduled flight operations at LaGuardia:
    1. The final Order applies to all operators of unscheduled flights,
except helicopter operations, at LaGuardia from 6 a.m. through 9:59
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday and from 12 noon through 9:59
p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday.
    2. The final Order takes effect on January 1, 2007, and will expire
at the first change of scheduling season occurring no less than 90 days
after the issuance of a final rule regulating congestion at LaGuardia.
    3. No person can operate an aircraft other than a helicopter to or
from LaGuardia unless the operator has received, for that unscheduled
operations, a reservation that is assigned by the David J. Hurley Air
Traffic Control System Command Center's Airport Reservation Office
(ARO). Additional information on procedures for obtaining a reservation
will be available via the Internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ecvrs.

    4. Six (6) reservations are available per hour for unscheduled
operations at LaGuardia. The ARO will assign reservations on a 30-
minute basis.
    5. The ARO receives and processes all reservation requests.
Reservations are assigned on a ``first-come, first-served'' basis,
determined as of the time that the ARO receives the request. A
cancellation of any reservation that will not be used as assigned is
required.
    6. Filing a request for a reservation does not constitute the
filing of an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, as separately
required by regulation. After the reservation is obtained, an IFR
flight plan can be filed. The IFR flight plan must include the
reservation number in the ``remarks'' section.
    7. Air Traffic Control will accommodate declared emergencies
without regard to reservations. Non-emergency flights in direct support
of national security, law enforcement, military aircraft operations, or
public-use aircraft operations will be accommodated above the
reservation limits with the prior approval of the Vice President,
System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization. Procedures for
obtaining the appropriate reservation for such flights are available
via the Internet at http://www.fly.faa.gov/ECVRS.

    8. Notwithstanding the limits in paragraph 4, if the Air Traffic
Organization determines that air traffic control, weather, and capacity
conditions are favorable and significant delay is not likely, the FAA
can accommodate additional reservations over a specific period. Unused
Operating Authorizations can also be temporarily made available for
unscheduled operations. Reservations for additional operations would be
obtained through the ARO.
    9. Reservations cannot be bought, sold, or leased.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 2, 2007.
Kerry B. Long
Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 07-5583 Filed 11-2-07; 4:11 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36806-36807]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15673]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0743; FRL-9929-52-OEI]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Critical Use Exemption From the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Critical Use Exemption from the Phaseout of Methyl Bromide
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.2031.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0482) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved
through June 30, 2015. Public comments were previously requested via
the Federal Register (79 FR 78425) on December 30, 2014 during a 60-day
comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public
comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its
estimated burden and cost to the public. 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 OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 27, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0501, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T,

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Arling, Stratospheric
Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, (6205T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2338; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: EPA is seeking to renew this ICR to collect methyl
bromide Critical Use Exemption (CUE) applications from regulated
entities on an annual basis, which requires the submission of data from
regulated industries to the EPA and requires recordkeeping of key
documents to ensure compliance with the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer (Protocol) and the CAA. This information
collection is conducted to meet U.S. obligations under Article 2H of
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Protocol).
    Since 2002, entities have applied to EPA for a critical use
exemption that would allow for the continued production and import of
methyl bromide after the phaseout in January 2005. On an annual basis,
EPA uses the data submitted by end users to create a nomination of
critical uses, which are submitted to the Protocol's Ozone Secretariat
for review by advisory bodies, including the Methyl Bromide Technical
Options Committee (MBTOC) and the Technical and Economic Assessment
Panel (TEAP). The uses authorized internationally by the Parties to the
Protocol are made available in the U.S. on an annual basis.
    The applications will enable EPA to: (1) Maintain consistency with
the Protocol by supporting critical use nominations to the Parties to
the Protocol, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Decision IX/6 of the
Protocol; (2) Ensure that critical use exemptions comply with section
604(d)(6); and (3) Provide EPA with necessary data to evaluate the
technical and economic feasibility of methyl bromide alternatives in
the circumstance of the specific use, as presented in an application
for a critical use exemption.
    The reported data will enable EPA to: (1) Ensure that critical use
exemptions comply with section 604(d)(6); (2) Maintain compliance with
the Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the production
of ozone depleting substances; and (3) Analyze technical use data to
ensure that exemptions are used in accordance with requirements
included in the annual allocation rulemakings.
    EPA informs respondents that they may assert claims of business
confidentiality for any of the information they submit. Information
claimed confidential will be treated in accordance with the procedures
for handling information claimed as confidential under 40 CFR part 2,
subpart b, and will be disclosed only if EPA determines that the
information is not entitled to confidential treatment. If no claim of
confidentiality is asserted when the information is received by EPA, it
may be made available to the public without further notice to the
respondents (40 CFR 2.203). Individual reporting data may be claimed as
sensitive and will be treated as confidential information in accordance
with procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 2.
    Respondents/affected entities: Producers, importers, distributors
and custom applicators of methyl bromide; organizations, consortia and
associations of methyl bromide users; and individual methyl bromide
users.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain a benefit
under section 604(d)(6) of the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1069 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually, on occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 1,595 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b)
    Total estimated cost: $624,721 (per year), includes no annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 1,662 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the burden currently
approved by OMB. The primary reason for the decrease in burden hours is
a decrease in the number of applicants, end users and distributors of
methyl bromide. The CUE Allocation rule for 2014/2015 removed minor
reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to critical stock
allowances. In addition, after December 31, 2014, when methyl bromide
is phased out in developing countries, certain reporting requirements
related to the production and export of methyl bromide to those
countries are no longer applicable.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-15673 Filed 6-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63233-63235]
[FR Doc No: 2016-22026]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78785; File No. SR-C2-2016-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To
Amend the Fees Schedule

September 8, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 1, 2016, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. 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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Particularly, the
Exchange proposes to amend Taker fees for simple, non-complex orders in
all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes (except
Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'')) in both penny and non-penny classes. The
Taker fees would be increased by $0.02 per contract in penny classes
and by $0.02 for customers (``C'' origin code) and by $0.05 for all
other origin codes in non-penny classes. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to adopt the following rates. Listed rates are per contract.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Penny classes               Non-penny
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                Current      Proposed     Current      Proposed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer.............................................          .47          .49          .83          .85
C2 Market-Maker.............................................          .48          .50          .85          .90
All Other Origins (Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/               .48          .50          .88          .93
 Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO, etc.)....................
Trades on the Open..........................................      ($0.00)      ($0.00)      ($0.00)      ($0.00)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Exchange notes that the proposed Taker fee amounts are the same as,
or in line with, the amounts currently assessed for simple, non-complex
orders in equity, multiply-listed index, ETF and ETN options classes
assessed at other Exchanges.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, which lists, for
electronic executions in Penny Pilot issues, (1) Customer Taker fee
of $0.49, (2) Market-Maker Taker fee of $0.50, and (3) Firm and
Broker Dealer Taker fee of $0.50; and for electronic executions in
non-Penny Pilot issues, (1) Customer Taker fee of $0.85, (2) Market-
Maker Taker fee of $1.08, and (3) Firm and Broker Taker fee of
$1.08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires
that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and
other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed increase to Taker fees for
simple, non-complex orders in all equity, multiply-listed index, ETF
and ETN options classes (except RUT) are reasonable because the
proposed fee amounts are the same as, or in line with, the amounts
assessed for similar transactions at other exchanges.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees to Public Customers as compared to
other market participants because Public Customer order flow enhances
liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
Specifically, Public Customer liquidity benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
Market-Makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
Additionally, the proposed fee change applying to Public Customers will
be applied equally to all Public Customers.
    The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess lower fees in non-penny classes to Market-
Makers as compared to other market participants other than Public
Customers because Market-Makers, unlike other C2 market participants,
take on a number of obligations, including quoting obligations, that
other market participants do not have. Further, these lower fees
offered to Market-Makers are intended to incent Market-Makers to quote
and trade more on the Exchange, thereby providing more trading
opportunities for all market participants. Finally, all fee amounts
listed as applying to Market-Makers will be applied equally to all
Market-Makers.
    Similarly, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess higher fees to all other origins (i.e.,
Professional Customer, Firm, Broker/Dealer, non-C2 Market-Maker, JBO,
etc.) in non-penny classes. Particularly, the Exchange notes that it
believes it's equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess a
higher fee than it does of Market-Makers, because these market
participants do not have the same obligations, such as quoting, as
Market-Makers do. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess a higher fee than it does to Public Customers,
because, as described above, there is a history of providing
preferential pricing to Public Customers as Public Customer liquidity
benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities. The Exchange notes that the proposed fee amounts listed
for non-penny classes will also be applied equally to each of these
market participants (i.e., Professional Customers, Firms, Broker/
Dealers, non-C2 Market-Makers, JBOs, etc. will be assessed the same
amount). It should also be noted that all fee amounts described herein
are intended to attract greater order flow to the Exchange, which
should therefore serve to benefit all Exchange market participants.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any
burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, while different fees are assessed to
different market participants in some circumstances, these different
market participants have different obligations and different
circumstances as discussed above. The Exchange believes this proposal
will not cause an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because
the proposed Taker fee amounts are similar to fees assessed at other
exchanges for similar transactions.\9\ To the extent that the proposed
changes make C2 a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become C2
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-C2-2016-017 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-C2-2016-017. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2016-017, and should be
submitted on or before October 5, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-22026 Filed 9-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


      MEMORANDUM
      To: 		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199
      From:		U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation
      Date:		August 2015
Subject:	Alternative Compliance Option Technical Support Document (TSD)

Alternative Compliance Pathway for Units that Agree to Retire Before a Certain Date
      The agency discussed in section III.C of the preamble the potential for certain affected EGUs that are willing to commit to retiring by December 31, 2029 to take an alternative compliance pathway. This technical support document (TSD) provides additional information on which the public is encouraged to comment, sharing the agency's preliminary views on how such a pathway could be designed in either a mass-based or rate-based federal plan. The approaches in this TSD are intended to provide a voluntary pathway by which an affected EGU that commits to retiring would be removed from the trading program (either mass-based or rate-based trading) and instead would comply with a unit-specific emission limitation.  We note that it is important in order to maintain consistency with the guidelines that the overall stringency of the federal plan will not be reduced, and we encourage stakeholders to consider this in developing their comments on this topic.
1. Alternative Compliance in the Mass-based Approach
      The EPA believes there is a potential for an alternative compliance pathway in the proposed mass-based federal plan for an affected EGU that chooses to retire on or before December 31, 2029. Such a unit would need to accept an enforceable unit-level CO2 emission limit as well as an enforceable commitment to retire by a date-certain prior to the end of the interim performance period, but would be exempt from the requirement to hold allowances to cover its emissions for the entirety of the Interim Period (2022 through 2029). Such a unit would not be allocated any allowances. The unit would be required to comply with the federal plan's monitoring and reporting requirements (see section V.H in the federal plan for the proposed monitoring and reporting requirements).
      In order to maintain the stringency of the plan and so as not to unduly restrict the compliance options available to units that remain in the trading program, the EPA would determine the unit-level emission limit for an EGU that chooses this pathway as an amount of emissions equal to the sum of the allowances that the unit would otherwise have been allocated for the Interim Period. The EPA would sum the allocations that the unit would have been allocated under the general allocation approach, which is based on historical generation data, for each compliance period in the Interim Period. This calculation would not include any allowances from the proposed set-asides. (And if such set-asides were to be under-subscribed such that remaining allowances are returned to the general allocation method for distribution to affected EGUs, a unit under this pathway would not be included in the redistribution.) The proposed historical generation-based allocation approach and allowance set-asides are detailed in section V.D in the federal plan.
      The EPA would not allocate any allowances to a unit that chooses this pathway. Rather, the agency would subtract an amount from the mass goals (i.e., from the total mass budget) of the state where the retiring EGU is located, for each compliance period in the Interim Period, which would sum to the unit's emission limit. The retiring EGU would have the flexibility to distribute its emissions over time in any manner it chooses so long as its total emissions up until the point of retirement do not exceed its limit (i.e., its total emissions must not exceed an amount of emissions equal to the sum of the allowances it would otherwise have been allocated over the Interim Period). Allowances that would otherwise have been allocated to such a unit would not be recorded in any account in the allowance tracking system, would not be created, and would not enter the market.
      Although this approach would determine a unit-level CO2 emission limit based on the amount of allowances an EGU would otherwise have been allocated, the allocation of allowances in the mass-based federal plan does not constitute the determination of unit-level emission limits. In the narrow case of this voluntary, alternative compliance pathway, a unit would choose to comply by limiting its emissions to a unit-level cap and committing to retire by a date certain prior to the end of the Interim Period, and would not comply by holding allowances equal to its emissions. All other affected EGUs would comply with the federal plan by holding allowances equal to emissions during each compliance period, and would not be subject to a specific, numeric unit-level emission limit.
      This option may be particularly advantageous for marginal or older units that are no longer operating at their historical levels or which may choose to retire relatively early in the compliance periods. The affected EGU would gain the benefit of reduced administrative burdens as well as the potential ability to emit more CO2 earlier in the program.  The EPA believes that this approach  -  of basing a unit-level emission limit for a retiring unit on the amount of allowances the EGU would otherwise have been allocated in the general allocation approach  -  would provide flexibility to units that may want to choose an alternative pathway, while maintaining the overall stringency of the state goals, and without creating an additional burden for the affected EGUs that do not choose to take this alternative compliance pathway. The EPA requests comment on whether this approach in fact would meet each of these objectives.
      The owner or operator of an affected EGU that chooses this alternative compliance pathway would be required to notify the agency and adopt the enforceable retirement commitment and enforceable CO2 emission limit prior to the start of the first compliance period. We anticipate this would likely be handled through a modification of its title V operating permit to add such enforceable terms. If the agency were to finalize such an alternative compliance pathway, the EPA believes it would be reasonable to require an initial showing of interest in this option by March 1, 2020, and to have enforceable commitments in place on the affected EGU by March 1, 2021, which is before the proposed date of June 1, 2021 to record allocations in EGU accounts for the first compliance period. This timing would avoid the complexity of "taking back" allowances that had been recorded and might already have been sold or traded away from the EGU taking the alternative pathway.
      The EPA recognizes there are considerations that would need to be addressed in the event that a state in which an alternative pathway EGU is located replaces the mass-based federal plan with an approved state plan (or replaces the federal plan allocation approach with an approved state-determined approach) during the Interim Period. The EPA believes that at a minimum, the goals of such a state would need to be reduced for any remaining compliance periods in the Interim Period to reflect the amount of emissions that were "removed" from the state's mass goal to implement the alternative compliance pathway for the retiring EGU(s).
       The agency requests comment on whether such an exemption should be available for all affected EGUs, or limited to certain small units (e.g., steam units with less than 100 MW nameplate capacity), or not available at all. One reason for such a limitation is that this approach would remove allowances from the trading system, and thus could affect allowance-market liquidity and/or prices. Limiting availability to smaller units would reduce the potential that units taking this pathway could impact the functioning of the allowance market. We note that we anticipate this approach, if finalized, would be available to states as well in the mass-based model trading rule.
      The EPA also requests comment on an alternative to this approach where the owner or operator of an affected EGU that chooses this alternative pathway could choose to increase its unit-level emission limit by purchasing allowances and surrendering the allowances to the agency.
2. Alternative Compliance in the Rate-based Approach
      This section of the TSD discusses the potential for an alternative compliance pathway in the proposed rate-based federal plan for certain affected EGUs that choose to retire on or before December 31, 2029. As with the discussion of an alternative compliance pathway in the mass-based approach, it is necessary for consistency with the guidelines that the overall stringency of the federal plan be maintained. Further, such retiring EGUs would be required to take an enforceable commitment to retire, and would be required to meet a mass standard.
      For retiring EGUs that wish to use this alternative compliance demonstration that are subject to a rate-based standard, the EPA is proposing to remove the EGU from the trading program and institute a mass-based standard. This standard is unit-specific and is proposed to be the 2012 generation for the unit multiplied by the corresponding rate-based standard for the unit in the compliance period. This will give a mass value for the year and would be multiplied by the number of years in the compliance period to give the standard for that compliance period.  Under a rate based approach there is not an explicit limit on EGU utilization, but the need to purchase ERCs serves to limit utilization for units that inherently emit at a rate greater than the standard. The EPA is proposing to choose a mass based standard for alternative compliance for rate-based compliance jurisdictions to limit the utilization (and mass) of units while also allowing flexibility. The EPA solicits comment on this approach and whether a different historical baseline should be used for generation.
      The agency requests comment on whether such an alternative compliance pathway should be available for all affected EGUs, or limited to certain small units (e.g., steam units with less than 100 MW nameplate capacity), or not available at all. One reason for such a limitation is that this approach could potentially reduce the number of ERCs from the trading system, and thus could affect ERC-market liquidity and/or prices. Limiting availability to smaller units would reduce the potential that units taking this pathway could impact the functioning of the ERC market. We note that we anticipate this approach, if finalized, would be available to states as well in the rate-based model trading rule.


[Federal Register: September 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 184)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57862-57863]
[DOCID:fr23se10-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0958; FRL-9204-3]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on March 26, 2010 and concern volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from refinery vacuum producing systems
and process unit turnaround. We are approving local rules that regulate
these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 25, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0958 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. 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 in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne Wells, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On March 26, 2010 (75 FR 14545), EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title              Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD...................................       4453  Refinery Vacuum Producing          12/17/92     08/24/07
                                                         Devices or Systems.
SJVUAPCD...................................       4454  Refinery Process Unit              12/17/92     08/24/07
                                                         Turnaround.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
these rules into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register.

This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 22, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 7, 2010.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(52)(i)(D),
(c)(52)(iv)(G) and (c)(52)(vii)(D), by revising paragraph (c)(71)(i)(A)
and adding paragraph (c)(71)(i)(B), and by adding paragraphs
(c)(75)(iv) and (c)(351)(i)(C)(3) and (4) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (52) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on August 21, 1981 in paragraph
(c)(52)(i)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement
within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
area, Rule 414.2.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (G) Previously approved on May 7, 1982 in paragraph (c)(52)(iv)(A)
of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule 414.2.
* * * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on May 7, 1982 in paragraph (c)(52)(vii)(A)
of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rules 413.2 and
413.3.
* * * * *
    (71) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) New or amended Rules 411 and 414.3.
    (B) Previously approved on May 7, 1982 in paragraph (c)(71)(i)(A)
of this section and now deleted without replacement: Rule 414.3.
* * * * *
    (75) * * *
    (iv) Previously approved on August 21, 1981 in paragraph (c)(75)(i)
of this section and now deleted without replacement within the San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District area, Rule 414.3.
* * * * *
    (351) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (3) Rule 4453, ``Refinery Vacuum Producing Devices or Systems,''
adopted on May 21, 1992 and amended on December 17, 1992.
    (4) Rule 4454, ``Refinery Process Unit Turnaround,'' adopted on May
21, 1992 and amended on December 17, 1992.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-23808 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P