[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 31 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10583-10589]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03472]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0028; A-1-FRL-9779-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Reasonably Available Control Technology for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Massachusetts. These SIP revisions
consist of a demonstration that Massachusetts meets the requirements of
reasonably available control technology for oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) set forth by the
Clean Air Act with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
Additionally, we are proposing approval of updates to two existing
regulations limiting emissions of volatile organic compounds. This
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2013-0028 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0028,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109--3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail Code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109--3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2013-0028. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal
holidays.
    In addition, copies of the State submittals are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
Division of Air Quality Control, Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA
02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob McConnell, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (Mail Code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0046, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. Additionally, the phrase ``the
Commonwealth'' refers to the state of Massachusetts. The following
outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions
III. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions
    a. Evaluation of VOC Requirements
    b. Evaluation of NOX Requirements
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On January 31, 2008, the State of Massachusetts submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of information
documenting how Massachusetts complied with the reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.\1\ Additionally, on June 1, 2010, Massachusetts submitted
updates to two regulations that limit volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions, one of which further restricted emissions from pressure-
vacuum (PV) valves used by gasoline service stations, and another that
updates an existing regulation limiting VOC emissions from solvent
cleaning operations. The Commonwealth's submittals requested that they
be incorporated into the Massachusetts SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commonwealth's submittal was made to address RACT for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and does not address the 2008 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.075 parts per million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require
states to implement RACT in areas classified as moderate (and higher)
non-attainment for ozone, while section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act
requires RACT in states located in the ozone transport region (OTR).
Specifically, these areas are required to implement RACT for all major
VOC and NOX emissions sources and for all sources covered by
a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG). A CTG is a document issued by EPA
which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC
source category. A related set of documents, Alternative Control
Techniques (ACT) documents, exists primarily for NOX control
requirements. States must submit rules or negative declarations for CTG
source categories, but not for sources in ACT categories. However, RACT
must be imposed on major sources of NOX, and some of those
major sources may be within a sector covered by an ACT document.
    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of
time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease such as asthma. On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858),
EPA designated areas attainment or nonattainment with respect to the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. The entire state of Massachusetts was
designated nonattainment and classified as moderate, as two
nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 81.322.
    On November 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register that outlined the obligations that areas found to be in
nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard needed to address (see
70 FR 71612). This rule, referred to as the ``Phase 2 Implementation
rule,'' contained, among other things, a description of EPA's
expectations for states with RACT obligations. The Phase 2
Implementation rule indicated that states could meet RACT through the
establishment of new or more stringent requirements that meet RACT
control levels, through a certification that previously adopted RACT
controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour attainment purposes,
or with a combination of these two approaches. In addition, a State
must submit a negative declaration in instances where there are no CTG
sources.

II. Summary of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions

    On January 31, 2008, Massachusetts submitted a demonstration that
its regulatory framework for stationary sources meets the criteria for
RACT as defined in EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule. The Commonwealth
held a public hearing on the RACT program on January 18, 2008.
Massachusetts' RACT submittal notes that its prior statewide
designation as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard resulted in
the adoption of stringent controls for major sources of VOC and
NOX, including RACT level controls. Therefore, as allowed
for within EPA's Phase 2 Implementation rule, much of the
Commonwealth's submittal consists of a review of RACT controls adopted
under the 1-hour ozone standard and an indication of whether those
previously adopted controls still represent RACT under the 1997 ozone
standard. Additionally, Massachusetts notes that as a member state of
the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) it works with that organization to
identify and adopt, as deemed appropriate, regulations on additional
VOC and NOX categories beyond those for which EPA has issued
CTGs or ACT documents.

    With regard to VOC controls, the Commonwealth's submittal
identifies the specific control measures that have been previously
adopted to control emissions from VOC sources, reaffirms negative
declarations for some CTG categories, and describes updates being
considered to strengthen three VOC control regulations to ensure that
they will continue to represent RACT under the 1997 ozone standard. A
table named ``Table RACT-1'' within Massachusetts' submittal contains a
summary of the state's response to each of the CTG categories that EPA
issued through 2006.\2\ The table identifies the specific state rule,
where relevant, that is in place, and the date that EPA approved the
rule into the Massachusetts SIP. A table labeled ``Table RACT-2''
within the Commonwealth's submittal identifies the major VOC sources in
the state that are not covered by an ACT or CTG document. The state has
issued source-specific orders containing control requirements for the
facilities listed in Table RACT-2 of the state's submittal, and all of
these have been previously approved into the Massachusetts SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This rulemaking does not address Massachusetts' response to
the CTGs that EPA issued in 2006, 2007, and 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commonwealth's submittal notes that no sources exist in the
state for some CTG categories. Specifically, Table RACT-1 of
Massachusetts' submittal makes negative declarations for the following
CTG sectors:
    1. Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and
Process Unit Turnarounds;
    2. Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment;
    3. Manufacture of Synthetic Pharmaceutical Products;
    4. Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires;
    5. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners;
    6. Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene and
Polystyrene Resins;
    7. Natural Gas/Gasoline Process Leaks;
    8. Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Air Oxidation
Processes; and
    9. Ship Building and Repair.
    Massachusetts' review of its control program for sources of VOC
concludes that, with the adoption of revised rules for solvent
cleaning, Stage II vehicle refueling, and cutback asphalt, all required
VOC sources in the state are subject to RACT.
    As required, the Commonwealth's submittal addresses NOX
emissions as well as VOC emissions. In their submittal, the
Commonwealth explains that in order to address the 1990 CAA
NOX RACT requirement, Massachusetts adopted 310 CMR 7.19,
``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources of Oxides
of Nitrogen (NOX).'' This rule established NOX
RACT for large, medium and small boilers; stationary combustion
turbines; stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines; and
glass melting furnaces. In addition, they describe that 310 CMR
7.19(12) provided for single source NOX RACT determinations
for major ``miscellaneous'' NOX sources with a potential to
emit 50 tons or more per year of NOX. Massachusetts explains
that they have reviewed 310 CMR 7.19 and, in general, have determined
that the NOX controls required by 310 CMR 7.19 continue to
constitute NOX RACT under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for
each of the source categories covered by that rule, as well as for
major sources of NOX for which single-source RACT
determinations were made pursuant to 310 CMR 7.19(12). Additionally,
the Commonwealth certifies in Tables RACT-1 and RACT-2 that current
Massachusetts NOX RACT constitutes 8-hour NOX
RACT under the 1997 ozone standard for the NOX categories
listed and for the facilities for which single-source RACT
determinations were made.
    Within their submittal, the Commonwealth notes that certain
NOX emitting sectors are controlled by additional sections
of Massachusetts' air pollution control regulations. First,
Massachusetts notes that electric generation units (EGUs) and large
industrial boilers, in addition to requirements contained within 310
CMR 7.19, are also covered by 310 CMR 7.28, ``NOX Allowance
Trading Program,'' and 310 CMR 7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air
Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).'' In addition, Massachusetts notes that a
subset of the largest fossil fuel-fired EGUs in Massachusetts are also
subject to NOX emission limitations under 310 CMR 7.29,
``Emissions Standards for Power Plants,'' adopted in 2001. Lastly, the
Commonwealth notes that municipal waste combustors, in addition to
requirements contained within 310 CMR 7.19, are also covered by 310 CMR
7.08, ``Incinerators.''
    Massachusetts' review of its control program for major sources of
VOC and NOX thus concludes that, with the adoption of
revised rules for solvent cleaning, Stage II vehicle refueling, and
cutback asphalt, all major sources in the state are subject to RACT
under the 1997 ozone standard.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Massachusetts' SIP Revisions

    EPA has reviewed Massachusetts' determination that it has adopted
VOC and NOX control regulations for stationary sources that
constitute RACT, and determined that the set of regulations cited by
the Commonwealth constitute RACT for purposes of the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Additionally, we are proposing to approve updates to two VOC
RACT regulations submitted by Massachusetts on June 1, 2010.

a. Evaluation of VOC Requirements

    Massachusetts' submittal documents the set of VOC control
regulations that have been adopted to ensure that RACT level controls
are required in the state. These requirements include: 310 CMR 7.18,
``Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds;'' and 310 CMR 7.24,
``Organic Material Storage and Distribution.'' Table RACT-1 of the
Commonwealth's submittal indicates that Massachusetts has either
adopted a regulation that has been incorporated into the SIP to address
EPA's pre-2006 CTGs, or submitted a negative declaration in instances
where no facilities exist in the state for certain CTGs identified in
the submittal. Massachusetts' review of these VOC RACT regulations
revealed that several could be strengthened in order to continue to
meet RACT, and we address the disposition of those updates further
below.
    Additionally, Massachusetts has adopted numerous single source RACT
orders for major sources of VOC that are not covered by one of EPA's
CTGs, and these orders have been submitted to EPA and incorporated into
the SIP. They are identified within the Commonwealth's submittal in
Table RACT-2. Also, as noted above, Massachusetts adopted, and we are
proposing to approve into the Massachusetts SIP, updates to two
existing VOC RACT rules, namely the state's existing solvent metal
cleaning and Stage II motor vehicle refueling regulations.
    The Commonwealth's submittal documents a substantial downward trend
in VOC emissions from stationary sources, a portion of which is
attributable to RACT controls implemented by Massachusetts. Data
collected by Massachusetts from its annual survey of industrial point
source emitters reveals that between 1996 and 2002, VOC emissions from
industrial point sources declined by 63%. This decline in emissions was
brought about,

in part, by the RACT program implemented by Massachusetts.
    We are proposing approval of updates to the following two VOC RACT
regulations described below, which Massachusetts has strengthened such
that they continue to represent RACT under the 1997 ozone standard.
Although Massachusetts's RACT certification submittal indicates that
three existing VOC rules were to be updated in such fashion, only two
were updated. Massachusetts updated its existing rules limiting
emissions from solvent cleaning (metal degreasing) and emissions from
storage tanks at gasoline service stations, but did not update its
existing cutback asphalt regulation. These three regulations are
discussed individually, as follows.
Solvent Degreasing Rule
    Massachusetts updated its previously SIP-approved (58 FR 34911)
solvent cleaning rule primarily to include a new requirement limiting
the vapor pressure for cold cleaning solvents, as recommended within
the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) 2001 model rule for this
activity. The requirement applies to cold cleaning degreasers that hold
more than one liter of solvent. The Commonwealth's proposed revision
includes exemptions for cold cleaning degreasers used in special and
extreme metal cleaning, for devices located in a permanent total
enclosure with an overall VOC control efficiency of at least 90
percent, and for facilities that receive an approval from the
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to use a non-compliant
solvent due to unsafe operating conditions. We note that with the new
vapor pressure limit, the revised rule is more stringent than the
previously SIP-approved version of the rule. In particular,
Massachusetts estimated that the revised rule would reduce VOC
emissions by 7 tons per summer day in 2009 compared to the previously
regulated levels.\3\ Therefore, the revised rule meets the requirements
of section 193 of the CAA, which provides that ``[n]o control
requirement in effect * * * before November 15, 1990, in any area which
is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified after
November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures
equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.'' For
similar reasons, the revisions meets the requirements of section 110(l)
of the CAA, which prohibits EPA from approving a SIP revision ``if the
revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress * * * or any other
applicable requirement of [the Clean Air Act].'' Additionally, we note
that the limited number of exemptions from the new vapor pressure
requirement is acceptable given that this requirement is above and
beyond the RACT recommendation within the EPA's CTG \4\ for this source
category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Background Information and Technical Support Document
for Proposed Amendments To 310 CMR 7.00 et seq., 310 CMR 7.18,
Volatile and Halogenated Organic Compounds, Solvent Metal
Degreasing,'' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
October 17, 2008, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \4\ See ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent
Metal Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022; 1977/11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stage II Rule
    The Commonwealth updated its previously adopted, SIP-approved (65
FR 78974) Stage II Vapor Recovery regulation, 310 CMR 7.24(6),
primarily to require the use of PV vent caps on vapor balance systems
installed on underground gasoline storage tanks to further reduce
evaporative emissions from vehicle refueling. A number of additional
updates were also made to the rule, including the following items.
    The Commonwealth revised definitions for the terms ``isolate,''
``minor modification,'' ``routine maintenance,'' and ``substantial
modification,'' and also proposed new language clarifying requirements
that ensure timely repair of Stage II systems. Massachusetts
incorporated requirements that compel compliance testing companies to
notify the DEP of any facilities that fail a compliance test, and also
revised existing requirements for compliance testing companies.
    Experience gained from operation of the Stage II program revealed
that the compliance benefit attributed to the 120 day in-use compliance
testing and certification requirement for vacuum assist systems could
be achieved by the weekly visual and annual compliance testing
requirement, and so the Commonwealth eliminated the 120 day in-use
compliance testing requirement. Additionally, Massachusetts' revisions
include an allowance for a facility to commence operation immediately
upon passing applicable testing requirements.
    When Massachusetts initially adopted its Stage II rule in 1989, it
adopted a more stringent applicability level than subsequently required
by the CAA amendments of 1990 \5\ that resulted in essentially all
dispensing of gasoline to be subject to the regulation. Because of
this, very small levels of gasoline dispensing activity such as that
which occurs at salvage yards was covered by the regulation. Therefore,
the Commonwealth's revised rule exempts motor vehicle salvage yards
that dispense recovered fuel on-site to employee vehicles. By including
this exemption, Massachusetts believes that the air quality protections
afforded by the rule will not be adversely affected. Given the minimal
amount of gasoline that will receive this exemption in comparison to
the statewide use of motor vehicle fuel, we agree with the
Commonwealth's conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Section 182(b)(3) of the CAA requires Stage II controls at
gasoline dispensing facilities which dispense 10,000 gallons or more
per month or 50,000 gallons per month in the case of independent
small business marketers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commonwealth's revisions to the Stage II regulation include
several provisions relating to requirements put in place by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB). These include an allowance for
the installation of CARB approved above ground storage tanks,
references to CARB Stage II approval letters, and an update to the list
of CARB approved Stage II systems to incorporate recently adopted CARB
Executive Orders.
    Massachusetts also made a number of minor revisions to existing
recordkeeping and testing requirements applicable to Stage II system
operators. We note that, with the addition of the new PV vent valve
requirements, the revised rule is more stringent than the previously
SIP-approved rule, even after accounting for the new exemption for
motor vehicle salvage yards that dispense recovered fuel on-site to
employee vehicles. Therefore, the revision meets the requirements of
section 110(l) of the CAA.
    The Commonwealth submitted its updated Stage II vapor recovery and
solvent cleaning rules to EPA on June 1, 2010, and we are proposing
approval of them within this action.
Cutback Asphalt Rule
    The Commonwealth's January 31, 2008 submittal indicated that
updates were also intended for 310 CMR 7.18(9), the existing cutback
asphalt paving rule. However, on January 18, 2013, Massachusetts
submitted a letter withdrawing portions of the January 31, 2008
submittal, including the commitment to revise the cutback asphalt rule.
The Commonwealth noted in its January 18, 2013 withdrawal letter that
on May 29, 2012 (77 FR 31496), EPA issued a final determination that
Eastern Massachusetts had attained the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and
on June 19, 2012 (77 FR 36404) issued a similar determination for the
Western Massachusetts nonattainment area. Therefore, the Commonwealth
indicated

that it now believes that its existing SIP-approved (58 FR 3495)
cutback asphalt regulation continues to represent RACT. Given the
circumstances cited above, we concur with this conclusion.

b. Evaluation of NOX Requirements

    Massachusetts' submittal documents the set of NOX
control regulations that have been adopted to ensure that RACT level
controls are required in the state. These requirements include the
following sections of title 310 of the Code of Massachusetts
Regulations:
    7.08, ``Incinerators;''
    7.19, ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for Sources
of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX);''
    7.28, ``NOX Allowance Trading Program;''
    7.29, ``Emission Standards for Power Plants;'' and,
    7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).''
    Table RACT-1 of the Commonwealth's submittal indicates the
regulation that the Commonwealth has adopted, where appropriate, to
address EPA's ACTs for NOX source categories. We note that
we have not updated any of the ACT documents noted within Table RACT-1.
Massachusetts' submittal addresses NOX RACT for all major
sources in the Commonwealth. For the following sectors for which EPA
has published ACT guidelines, Massachusetts's submittal indicates that
there are no major sources of NOX within the Commonwealth:
nitric and adipic acid plants; cement plants; and iron and steel
manufacturing facilities. Major NOX sources do exist in
Massachusetts for the ACT categories noted within Table RACT-1, and
this Table identifies the NOX RACT regulations the
Commonwealth has adopted to address them. These ACT categories include
combustion turbines, process heaters, internal combustion engines,
industrial-commercial-institutional boilers, and glass manufacturing
facilities. Massachusetts' RACT submittal certifies that these
regulations represent RACT for purposes of EPA's 1997 8-hour ozone
standard. Additionally, Massachusetts has adopted three single source
RACT orders for major sources of NOX that are not covered by
one of EPA's ACTs, and these orders, identified in Table RACT-2, have
been submitted to EPA and incorporated into the SIP. See 40 CFR
52.1167. Table RACT-1 also lists regulations adopted by the
Commonwealth to further control NOX emissions from electric
utility boilers and municipal waste combustors (MWCs), and we discuss
these two sectors separately below.
Municipal Waste Combustors
    MWCs represent one of the largest NOX emitting sectors
in the Commonwealth, and EPA previously approved RACT requirements for
these units within 310 CMR 7.19(9), which became effective in 1995. See
64 FR 48095. More recently, in 2000, the Commonwealth tightened
emission limits for eleven of the seventeen MWC units in the
Commonwealth via a strengthening of 310 CMR 7.08(2), Incinerators.
Massachusetts submitted the updated rule to us, and we approved it as
part of the Commonwealth's plan for controlling MWC emissions from
existing large MWC plants under Section 111(d) of the CAA on October 9,
2002 (67 FR 62894). Massachusetts noted that the update to section
7.08(2) established emission limits that were equivalent to those
within 40 CFR 60 Subpart Cb, which refers to EPA's emission guideline
entitled, ``Emissions Guidelines and Compliance Times for Large
Municipal Waste Combustors that are Constructed on or Before September
20, 1994.'' The Commonwealth's RACT certification further noted that
one unit in Massachusetts is subject to the New Source Performance
Standard located at 40 CFR 60 Subpart Eb. In light of the above, we
find that the controls on 12 of the 17 units as specified above, in
addition to the initial baseline adoption of RACT for MWCs in 1995
pursuant to CMR 7.19(9), demonstrates that the Commonwealth has
required an overall RACT level of control for these units.
Electric Utility Boilers
    EPA's Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule mentioned above addressed
various statutory requirements, including the requirement for RACT
level controls for sources located within nonattainment areas
generally, and controls for NOX emissions from EGUs in
particular. EPA indicated its determination that the regional
NOX emissions reductions that result from either the
NOX SIP Call or the CAIR would meet the NOX RACT
requirement for EGUs located in states included within the respective
NOX SIP Call or the CAIR geographic regions. Thus, EPA
concluded that: ``[t]he State need not perform a NOX RACT
analysis for sources subject to the State's emission cap-and-trade
program where the cap-and-trade program has been adopted by the State
and approved by EPA as meeting the NOX SIP Call requirements
or, in States achieving the CAIR reductions solely from electric
generating units (EGUs), the CAIR NOX requirements.'' \6\
Based in part on this existing EPA rule at that time, the Commonwealth
certified that the NOX sources regulated by its
NOX SIP Call and CAIR rules meet the 8-hour ozone RACT
requirements for purposes of the 1997 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule, 70 FR 71617.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, in November 2008, several parties challenged EPA's Phase 2
Ozone Implementation Rule. In particular, they challenged EPA's
determination that compliance with the NOX SIP Call and/or
the CAIR could satisfy NOX RACT requirements for EGUs in
nonattainment areas and EPA's determination that compliance with the
CAIR could satisfy NOX RACT for EGUs in ozone nonattainment
areas. As a result of this litigation, the Court decided that the
provisions in the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule indicating that a
state need not perform (or submit) a NOX RACT analysis for
EGU sources subject to a cap-and-trade program that meets the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call are inconsistent with the
statutory requirements of section 172(c)(1).\7\ The Court specifically
held that the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule allowing use of the
NOX SIP call to constitute RACT without any locally
applicable analysis regarding the equivalence of NOX SIP
Call and RACT reductions: ``is inconsistent with the Clean Air Act * *
* in allowing participation in a regional cap-and-trade program to
satisfy an area-specific statutory mandate.'' The Court emphasized
that: ``the RACT requirement calls for reductions in emissions from
sources in the area; reductions from sources outside the nonattainment
area do not satisfy the requirement * * * Accordingly, participation in
the NOX SIP call would constitute RACT only if participation
entailed at least RACT-level reductions in emissions from sources
within the nonattainment area.'' In view of its decision in North
Carolina v. EPA, in which the Court had previously remanded the CAIR,
the court deferred consideration of the litigant's challenge to the
Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule insofar as they related to the CAIR
program. In light of the above, as well as a 2007 petition for
reconsideration that EPA granted on this issue as it pertains to
CAIR,\8\ we do not consider the NOX SIP call or CAIR to
equal NOX RACT. Rather, consistent

with the above ruling, we have prepared a locally applicable analysis
of whether electric utility boilers in the Commonwealth are subject to
a RACT level of controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
    \8\ See Earthjustice Petition for Reconsideration of the Clean
Air Fine Particle Rule, June 25, 2007. See also April 25, 2011
letter from Lisa P. Jackson to Paul Cort, Earthjustice, responding
to the June 25, 2007 petition for reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electric utility boilers are subject to the Commonwealth's initial
NOX RACT regulation, 310 CMR 7.19, which was adopted in the
mid-1990s. We previously determined that the emission limits within 310
CMR 7.19 required a RACT level of control on these units for purposes
of our 1-hour ozone standard. See 64 FR 48095. Massachusetts
subsequently acted to further reduce NOX emissions from
these units by participation in several NOX budget trading
programs, and also by enactment of 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emission Standards
for Power Plants.''
    Regarding NOX budget trading programs, between 1999 and
2002, Massachusetts participated in the OTC's NOX Budget
Program. Massachusetts implemented this program by adopting 310 CMR
7.27, ``NOX Allowance Program,'' and submitted this
regulation to EPA which we incorporated into the Massachusetts SIP on
December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81743). In 2003, the sources covered by the
NOX Allowance Program were transitioned to the Federal
NOX budget program (also referred to as the ``NOX
SIP call'') which Massachusetts implemented by adopting 310 CMR 7.28,
``NOX Allowance Trading Program.'' Massachusetts submitted
this regulation to EPA, and we approved it into the Massachusetts SIP
on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67854). The Federal NOX budget
program achieved significant additional NOX reductions
within Massachusetts from the sources subject to its requirements. In
particular, emissions from units within Massachusetts subject to the
Federal NOX budget program reduced ozone season
NOX emissions from 9,265 tons in 2003 to 3,232 tons by 2008,
representing a 65% reduction in emissions. Massachusetts then acted to
further reduce NOX emissions from these units by adopting
310 CMR 7.32, ``Massachusetts Clean Air Interstate Rule (Mass CAIR).''
Massachusetts submitted this program to EPA, and we approved it into
the SIP on December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67854). By 2011, ozone season
NOX emissions from units within the Commonwealth subject to
the CAIR rule decreased by an additional 46%, falling from 3,232 tons
in 2008 to 1,760 tons in 2011. The substantial decrease in
NOX emissions from sources in the Commonwealth subject to
the Federal NOX budget and CAIR programs was brought about,
in part, by the installation of various types of NOX
emission control equipment of the variety listed in Table 1, below.
Although the CAIR program was subject to a number of court challenges,
a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia issued on August 21, 2012 which vacated the Cross State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR) provided that until the CSAPR litigation is
resolved, the CAIR program remains in effect. (EME Homer City
Generation, L.P., v. EPA, No. 11-1302. (D.C. Cir. 2012)).
    Regarding 310 CMR 7.29, ``Emission Standards for Power Plants,''
the Commonwealth adopted this regulation in 2001, and submitted it to
EPA for incorporation into the SIP within a submittal made on December
30, 2011, to address regional haze requirements. We approved the
state's submittal, including 310 CMR 7.29, within a final rulemaking
signed by the Regional Administrator on September 12, 2012 and
forwarded for publication in the Federal Register. A copy of the signed
approval of the Commonwealth's regional haze SIP is available in the
docket for this action. This rule covers the largest fossil fuel-fired
EGUs in Massachusetts and required individual emissions units to
install additional add-on controls to comply with output-based
NOX emission limits between 2000 and 2008. As of 2009, six
operating facilities were subject to this regulation containing 13
EGUs. Annual NOX emissions for these six facilities dropped
from 30,352 tons in 2000 to 7,009 tons in 2009, a drop of 77%. The
NOX controls installed on each unit at these facilities, as
listed in their Title V Operating Permit, is contained in Table 1,
below. Within Table 1, the following abbreviations are used: LNB for
low NO burners; OFA for over-fire air; FGR for flue gas recirculation;
SCR for selective catalytic reduction; and SNCR for selective non-
catalytic reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ RACT requirements for Unit 7 are located at 310 CMR
7.19(4)(a)(3)(a)(i), which requires a NOX emission limit
of 0.25 lbs/mmBtu when burning oil, and pursuant to 310 CMR
7.19(4)(a)(3)(a)(ii) which requires a NOX emission limit
of 0.20 lbs/mmBtu when burning gas. Between 2010 and 2012, the unit
was well within these limits, emitting NOX within a range
of 0.06 to 0.08 lbs/mmBtu.

                          Table 1--NOX Controls at Facilities Governed by 310 CMR 7.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Facility                    Unit      NOX controls installed            Operating status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brayton Point...........................        1  LNB, OFA, SCR..............  Operating.
Brayton Point...........................        2  LNB, OFA...................  Operating.
Brayton Point...........................        3  LNB, OFA, SCR..............  Operating.
Brayton Point...........................        4  LNB........................  Operating.
Canal Station...........................        1  LNB, OFA, FGR, SCR.........  Operating.
Canal Station...........................        2  LNB, OFA, FGR, combustion    Operating.
                                                    tuning, SNCR.
Mount Tom...............................        1  LNB, OFA, SCR..............  Operating.
Mystic..................................        7  None \9\...................  Operating.
Salem Harbor............................        1  LNB, SNCR..................  Retired 1/15/12.
Salem Harbor............................        2  SNCR.......................  Retired 1/15/12.
Salem Harbor............................        3  LNB, OFA, SNCR.............  Operating.
Salem Harbor............................        4  LNB........................  Operating.
Somerset................................        8  OFA, Natural Gas Reburn      Retired 1/2/10.
                                                    System, SNCR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned, Massachusetts adopted a set of regulations
to address NOX RACT for the 1-hour ozone standard, and we
approved those requirements into the Commonwealth's SIP. Since then,
Massachusetts has acted to further reduce NOX emissions from
the two largest NOX emitting sectors in the state, namely
municipal waste combustors and electric utility boilers. In light of
the above regulatory actions and NOX control equipment
installations and the resulting decrease in NOX emissions
within Massachusetts, in addition to the initial baseline adoption of
RACT in CMR 7.19, EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts' January
31, 2008 SIP certification that the state has adopted air pollution
control strategies that represent NOX RACT for purposes of

compliance with our 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Our decision is also
based, in part, on the fact that both nonattainment areas within the
Commonwealth have attained our 1997 8-hour ozone standard by their
attainment date of June 15, 2010 as noted in Section IV, Proposed
Action.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing approval of Massachusetts' January 31, 2008 SIP
submittal that demonstrates that the state has adopted air pollution
control strategies that represent RACT for purposes of compliance with
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Additionally, we are proposing approval
of two revised regulations submitted by Massachusetts on June 1, 2010:
310 CMR 7.18(8), ``Solvent Metal Degreasing;'' and 310 CMR 7.24(6),
``Dispensing of Motor Vehicle Fuel.''
    EPA has evaluated the VOC and NOX stationary source
control regulations which Massachusetts contends meets RACT for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and determined that a level of control
consistent with RACT has been implemented in the state for purposes of
the 1997 ozone standard. We do not anticipate any difficulties with
enforcing the state's standards, as EPA has previously approved the
rules Massachusetts cites as the means by which RACT is implemented. We
have determined that these regulatory elements and the resulting
reduction in VOC and NOX emissions from major sources
demonstrate that a RACT level of control for both pollutants has been
implemented in the state. EPA has previously determined that
Massachusetts' two 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas attained the 1997
ozone standard by their attainment date, based on quality-assured air
monitoring data. This determination was published on May 29, 2012 (77
FR 31496) for the Eastern Massachusetts nonattainment area, and on June
19, 2012 (77 FR 36404) for the Western Massachusetts nonattainment
area. The improvements in air quality represented by these clean data
determinations were brought about, in part, by the RACT program
implemented by Massachusetts.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the 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 proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2013-03472 Filed 2-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 59332]
[DOCID:fr19oc07-99]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2007-37]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking
relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this
notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in,
this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this
notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is
intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 8, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2007-
29191 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Docket: To read background documents or comments received,
go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket

Management Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor
at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We will post all comments we receive,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

information you provide. Using the search function of our docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Frances Shaver<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, 2007.
Eve Adams,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2007-29191.
    Petitioner: Marpat Aviation, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 141.39(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: To allow Marpat Aviation to utilize
their HU-1B, certificated in restricted category, for the purpose of
conducting training under a part 141, appendix K, paragraph 7.

 [FR Doc. E7-20661 Filed 10-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60947-60950]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23999]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70508; File No. SR-C2-2013-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Message Types, Connectivity and Bandwidth Allowance

September 26, 2013.
    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 16, 2013, 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to codify certain definitions, practices and
requirements related to System connectivity, message types and
bandwidth allowance to promote transparency and maintain clarity in the
rules. 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
    C2 proposes to codify certain definitions, practices and
requirements related to System connectivity, message types and
bandwidth allowance to promote transparency and maintain clarity in the
rules. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to (i) amend Rule 1.1
(Definitions) to define ``API'' and ``Order''; (ii) amend Rule 6.34
(Participant Electronic Connectivity) to clarify that authorized market
participants connect electronically to the Exchange via an
``Application Programming Interface'' (``API'') and specify which APIs
are available; (iii) amend Rule 6.35 (Message Packets) to clarify that
a Trading Permit shall entitle the holder to a maximum number of orders
and quotes per second(s) as determined by the Exchange and that the
Exchange may expand bandwidth limitations in certain situations; and,
adopt new Rule 6.19 (Types of Order Formats) to describe the types of
order formats available to Permit Holders to facilitate order entry.
    C2 first proposes to define ``Application Programming Interface''
(``API'') and ``Order'' in its rules. While there are various
references to these two terms throughout the C2 Rules, nowhere in the
rules are the definitions codified. Therefore, C2 believes it would be
useful to explicitly define these terms within the rule text to reduce
confusion. First, C2 proposes to define ``API'' as a computer interface
that allows market participants with authorized access to interface
electronically with C2. This proposed definition is substantially
similar to the definition of API previously adopted by the Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') and the CBOE Stock
Exchange, LLC (``CBSX'').\3\ Additionally, C2 will define the term
``order'' as a firm commitment to buy or sell option contracts. The
proposed definition of the term ``order'' is similar to the definition
previously adopted by CBOE.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBSX Rule 50.1 (Definitions) and CBOE Rule 1.1
(Definitions).
    \4\ See CBOE Rule 1.1 (Definitions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, C2 believes it would be useful to codify how authorized
market participants may access the C2 System. Specifically, the
Exchange will make clear that authorized market participants access C2
via an API. Currently, C2 offers two APIs: (1) CBOE Market Interface
(``CMi'') and (2) Financial Information eXchange (``FIX'') Protocol.
Multiple versions of each API may exist and be made available to all
authorized market participants. Authorized market participants may
select which of the available APIs they would like to use to connect to
the System. C2 believes it is important to provide market participants
with this flexibility so that they can determine the API that will be
most compatible with their systems and maximize the efficiency of their
interface. Connection to the System allows authorized market
participants to engage in order and quote entry, as well as auction
participation.
    C2 believes that while information relating to connectivity and
available APIs for C2 is already widely available to all market
participants via technical specifications, codifying this information
within the rule text will provide additional transparency.
    C2 also seeks to codify and describe the types of order formats
that are available for order entry in new Rule 6.19 (Types of Order
Formats). Order formats are message types that are used to send new
orders into CBOE Command \5\ through a user's selected API. C2
currently offers one order format, C2 Order Format 1 (``OF1''). In
addition to C2 OF1, C2 seeks to make another order format available to
Permit Holders, namely, C2 Order Format 2 (``C2 OF2'').\6\ C2 will
announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change as it
relates to the availability of C2 OF2 in a Regulatory Circular to be
published no later than 90 days following the effective date of this
rule filing. The implementation date will be no later than 180 days
following the effective date of this rule filing. Once C2 Of2 is
available, Permit Holders may elect to use either order format,
provided that the order format selected supports the given order type.
The Exchange believes it is important to provide market participants
with this flexibility so that they can determine the order format that
will be most compatible with their needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ CBOE Command is the trading engine platform for CBOE, C2,
CBSX and CBOE Futures Exchange (``CFE''). CBOE Command incorporates
both order handling and trade processing on the same platform.
    \6\ C2 Order Format 2 was previously offered and available to
all C2 Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Orders using the C2 OF1 format must pass through various processes,
including validation checks which occur in the trade engine. Examples
of such validation checks include validating an order's origin code or
contingency type. C2 OF1 supports all

order types, including auction responses.
    Orders using the C2 OF2 format will also be subject to various
processes, including validation checks similar to C2 OF1 validation
checks (e.g., validating an order's origin code). These validation
checks will occur in the trade engine. Additionally, fewer fields will
be required for order entry using C2 OF2 compared to using C2 OF1. The
utilization of fewer fields results in a smaller message size, thereby
increasing efficiency. C2 OF2 will support only Immediate-Or-Cancel,
ISO, ISO-Book and C2-Only orders. Accordingly, orders using the C2 OF2
format will not route to other market centers.
    Although C2 OF1 is currently offered by C2 and is detailed in
technical specifications available to all Permit Holders, it has never
been codified in the C2 rules.\7\ Therefore, C2 is proposing to
introduce new C2 Rule 6.19 to make it absolutely clear that C2 OF1 and
C2 OF2 will be available to users and to provide transparency and
certainty with respect to how orders using these order formats are
processed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that C2 Order Format 2 was previously
available to all Permit Holders and was detailed in technical
specifications which were available to all Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange next proposes to amend Rule 6.35 (Message Packets).
Rule 6.35 currently provides that a Trading Permit shall entitle the
holder to a maximum number of orders and quotes per second as
determined by the Exchange, that only Market-Makers may submit quotes,
and that Participants seeking to exceed that number of messages per
second may purchase additional message packets at prices set forth in
the Exchange's Fees Schedule.\8\ The Exchange first seeks to amend Rule
6.35 to clarify that a Trading Permit shall entitle the holder to a
maximum number of orders and quotes per second(s) (i.e., bandwidth is
set at x messages per 1 second or over the course of multiple seconds).
C2 next proposes to provide that C2 may set a different maximum number
of orders per second(s) for each of the available order formats under
proposed Rule 6.19. Next, C2 seeks to provide that C2 shall, upon
request and where good cause is shown, temporarily increase a Permit
Holder's order entry bandwidth allowance at no additional cost. All
determinations to temporarily expand bandwidth allowances will be made
in a non-discriminatory manner and on a fair and equal basis. C2 also
seeks to provide that no bandwidth limits shall be in effect during the
pre-opening prior to 8:15 a.m. CT, which shall apply to all Permit
Holders. Finally, C2 seeks to amend Rule 6.35 to provide that C2 may
determine times periods for which there shall temporarily be no
bandwidth limits in effect for all Permit Holders. Any such
determination shall be made in the interest of maintaining a fair and
orderly market. C2 shall notify all Permit Holders of any such
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See C2 Rule 6.35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C2 does not have unlimited system bandwidth capacity to support an
unlimited number of order and quote entry per second. For this reason,
C2 limits each Trading Permit to a maximum number of messages per
second(s). C2 however, also recognizes that different Permit Holders
have different needs and affords any Permit Holder the opportunity to
purchase additional bandwidth packets at prices set forth in C2's Fee
Schedule. C2 first seeks to amend Rule 6.35 to clarify that a Trading
Permit shall entitle the holder to a maximum number of orders and
quotes per second(s). For example, C2 notes that a Permit Holder may
have the option of choosing to have its bandwidth set at x orders per 1
second or 5x orders per 5 seconds. Currently, all Permit Holders may
choose to have its bandwidth set at x orders per one second or 5x
orders per 5 seconds for C2 OF1 orders only. Bandwidth for C2 OF2
orders will be set at x orders per one second. To illustrate, if the
maximum number of orders per second is 5 orders, a user may choose to
have its bandwidth set for C2 OF1 orders so that it may send in 5
orders per 1 second, or send in 25 orders over the course of 5 seconds.
Additionally, continuing with the above illustration (i.e., ``x''
equals 5), if a Permit Holder purchased one (1) additional Order Entry
bandwidth packet, pursuant to the current Fees Schedule, the Permit
Holder would have the ability to submit, depending on how its bandwidth
is set, either a total of 10 C2 OF1 or OF2 orders per 1 second or a
total of 50 C2 OF1 orders over the course of 5 seconds. As for quotes,
a Permit Holder is limited to x quote messages (``blocks'') per 1
second. C2 notes that each block is limited to a maximum number of
quotes. Additionally, C2 has set a maximum number of total quotes per 3
seconds. For example, if the Exchange limited each Trading Permit to
100 quotes per 1 block, 10 blocks per 1 second and 200 quotes per 3
seconds, then a user cannot, for example, enter 11 blocks per 1 second.
The Exchange will reject the entire block of quotes that puts the user
over the threshold. If a user in the above example were to enter, 10
blocks comprised of 10 quotes (i.e., total of 100 quotes) in the first
second and 5 blocks comprised of 20 quotes (i.e., total of 100 quotes)
in the following second, then the user would not be able to enter any
more blocks (and therefore quotes) in the third second, as the user
would exceed the 200 quotes per 3 second threshold. C2 believes that
adding ``(s)'' to the end of ``per second'' will clarify that a Trading
Permit entitles the holder to a maximum number of orders and quotes per
1 second or per multiple seconds.
    C2 next proposes to provide that it may set a different maximum
number of orders per second(s) for each of the order formats discussed
above. As noted above, C2 OF2 will utilize fewer fields resulting in a
smaller message size and increased efficiency. The System can therefore
better accommodate increased bandwidth capacity due to this smaller
message size. Accordingly, the Exchange may implement a higher maximum
number of orders per second for orders using C2 OF2 as compared to C2
OF1. C2 proposes to increase the maximum numbers of orders per second
for all orders submitted using message format C2 OF2. Any Permit Holder
sending orders using C2 OF2 would be entitled to this increased
bandwidth allowance for C2 OF2 orders only. To illustrate, C2 may
determine to set the maximum number of orders per second for C2 OF1
orders at 5 (i.e., 5 OF1 orders per 1 second or 25 OF1 orders per 5
seconds) and the maximum number of orders per second for C2 OF2 orders
at 15 (i.e., 15 OF2 orders per 1 second). Additionally, continuing with
the illustration, if a Permit Holder purchased one (1) additional Order
Entry bandwidth packet, the Permit Holder would have the ability to
submit, depending on how its bandwidth is set, a total of 10 OF1 orders
per 1 second or a total of 50 OF1 orders over the course of 5 seconds
and 30 OF2 orders per 1 second. The Exchange notes that each Permit
Holder will be subject to the same maximum number of orders per
second(s) set for each order format. Additionally, any change to the
maximum number of orders per second(s) for any order format will be
applicable to all Permit Holders.
    The Exchange next seeks to amend Rule 6.35 to make clear that under
certain circumstances and upon request, C2 may determine to temporarily
waive the maximum number of orders per second(s) and expand the
bandwidth settings at no additional cost to the requesting Permit
Holder. One such example in which bandwidth may be temporarily
increased is in situations where a Permit Holder's system is
experiencing technical problems,

resulting in a large order queue. Once the problem is resolved, the
queue has to be drained. In these instances, it may be necessary to
temporarily expand the bandwidth limits for that particular Permit
Holder to accommodate the accumulation of orders in its system and to
drain the queue of orders. Another example is when another exchange
declares a trading halt and a Permit Holder that has orders resting at
that exchange redirects that order flow to C2. The redirected order
flow may at times consist of thousands of orders. To enter such a large
quantity of orders, the Permit Holder's bandwidth allowance would
require a temporary expansion, which, upon request and demonstrated
need, C2 could provide at no additional charge.
    All determinations to temporarily expand bandwidth allowances shall
be made in a non-discriminatory manner and on a fair and equal basis.
Additionally, all Permit Holders who make such request and demonstrate
a need shall be entitled to a temporary expansion. C2 shall document
all requests for a temporary expansion of bandwidth, including whether
each request was granted or denied, along with the reasons for each
grant or denial. Also, temporary increases of bandwidth generally are
in effect for not longer than a few seconds or for as long as is
necessary to accommodate an order queue.
    Next, C2 notes that no bandwidth limits shall be in effect for any
Permit Holder during pre-opening, prior to 8:15 a.m. CT. This allows
Permit Holders to release, and C2 to absorb, order flow that has
accumulated overnight and pre-opening. C2 also notes that prior to the
opening of trading, such bandwidth restrictions are unnecessary. C2 may
also determine times periods for which there shall temporarily be no
bandwidth limits in effect for any Permit Holder. Any such
determination shall be made in the interest of maintaining a fair and
orderly market. C2 shall notify all Permit Holders of any such
determination and shall keep a record of any such notification.
    C2 finally notes that the proposed changes to Rule 6.35 are based
off a substantially similar rule previously adopted on CBOE.
Specifically, CBOE recently adopted Rule 6.23B (Bandwidth Packets),
which provides that a Trading Permit shall entitle the holder to a
maximum number of orders and quotes per second(s) as determined by
CBOE, that only Market-Makers may submit quotes, and that a Trading
Permit Holder seeking to exceed that number of messages per second may
purchase additional message packets at prices set forth in the CBOE's
Fees Schedule. Additionally, CBOE Rule 6.23B provides that CBOE shall,
upon request and where good cause is shown, temporarily increase a
Trading Permit Holder's order entry bandwidth allowance at no
additional cost and that all such determinations will be made in a non-
discriminatory manner and on a fair and equal basis. CBOE Rule 6.23B
also provides that no bandwidth limits shall be in effect during the
pre-opening prior to 8:25 a.m. CT, which shall apply to all Trading
Permit Holders. Finally, CBOE Rule 6.23B may determine times periods
for which there shall temporarily be no bandwidth limits in effect for
all Trading Permit Holders and that any such determination shall be
made in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See CBOE Rule 6.23B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) \10\ of
the Act. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) \11\ that the
rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to
remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, clearly defining in the rules two key terms (i.e., API and
Order) informs market participants. Next, codifying in the rules how
authorized market participants access C2 electronically and specifying
the manner in which inbound orders are submitted and processed provides
additional transparency in the rules and provides market participants
an additional avenue to easily understand the system and processes C2
offers. C2 believes additional transparency removes a potential
impediment to and perfecting the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protecting investors and
the public interest. Additionally, C2 believes that the order formats
being codified in proposed Rule 6.19 allows C2 to receive from Permit
Holders information in a uniform format, which aids C2's efforts to
monitor and regulate C2's markets and Permit Holders and helps prevent
fraudulent and manipulative practices.
    C2 also believes that the proposed rule changes are designed to not
permit unfair discrimination among market participants. For example,
under proposed Rule 6.34(a), all authorized market participants may
access C2 via an available API of their choosing. Additionally, under
proposed C2 Rule 6.35, all holders of a Trading Permit are limited to
maximum number of orders and quotes per second(s) and all holders of
Trading Permits are afforded the opportunity to exceed that number by
purchasing additional message packets. Any determinations to
temporarily expand bandwidth allowances would also be made on a non-
discriminatory basis. Finally, proposed Rule 6.19 is applicable to all
Permit Holders and provides that any Permit Holder may elect to use
either one of the two available order formats.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Specifically, C2 believes the proposed rule
change will not impose any burden because C2 is merely harmonizing its
Rules with current functionalities and practices. Therefore, the
proposed rule change promotes transparency in the rules without adding
any burden on market participants.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. 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 \12\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2013-034 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-C2-2013-034. 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 referto File Number SR-C2-2013-034, and should be
submitted on or before October 23, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23999 Filed 10-1-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53924-53925]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22197]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0821]

Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of federal advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Merchant Mariner Medical Advisory Committee (MMMAC) will
hold its inaugural meeting starting Monday, September 19, and ending
Wednesday September 21, 2011. The meetings will be open to the public.

DATES: MMMAC will meet on Monday, September 19, Tuesday, September 20,
and Wednesday, September 21, 2011 from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Please
note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed
its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Calhoon Marine Engineers
Beneficial Association (MEBA) Engineering School at 27050 Saint
Michaels Road, Easton, MD 21601.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Anne Higgins, MEBA School Executive Assistant,<PHONE_NUMBER> Extension
338 as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
``Summary'' section below. Comments must be submitted in writing to the
Coast Guard on or before September 12, 2011 and must be identified by
USCG-2011-0821 and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the
January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Two public comment periods will be held during the meeting. The
first public comment period will be held on Day 1 September 19, 2011
prior to the presentation of issues and task and the second comment
period will be held on Day 3, September 21, 2011 from 10:00 to 11:00
a.m. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes.
Please note that the public comment period may end before the time
indicated, following the last call for comments. Additionally, public
comment will be sought throughout the meeting as specific tasks and
issues are discussed by the committee. Contact the individual listed
below to register as a speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Dylan McCall, the MMMAC
Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>
or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions about the MEBA
facility, contact Anne Higgins, MEBA School Executive Assistant, at
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> Extension 338 or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The
MMMAC is authorized by section 210 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281) and the Committee's purpose is to advise the
Secretary on matters related to medical certification determinations
for issuance of merchant mariner credentials; medical standards and
guidelines for the physical qualifications of operators of commercial
vessels; medical examiner education; and medical research.

Agenda

Day 1

    (1) Opening comments by Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Captain
E. P. Christensen;
    (2) Introduction and swearing in of the new members;
    (3) Remarks from Coast Guard Leadership, Rear Admiral J. A. Watson;
    (4) Staff Administration issues;
    (5) Designation of the Chair and Vice-Chair;
    (6) Public Comments/Presentations; and
    (7) Presentation of Issues and Tasks (Order of Presentations TBD);

--Briefing the committee on the Coast Guard's Mariner Credentialing
Program and mariner evaluation process.
--Report of maritime casualties with a nexus to mariner medical issues.
--Form CG-719K & CG-719K/E--Review of the forms used by physicians for
documenting the medical/fitness exams of merchant mariners and
discussion of recommendations for improvement.
--Review of the most common mariner medical conditions leading to the
denial of a mariner's application and discussion of applicable
standards or guidance.
--Revising the Medical and Physical Evaluation Guidelines for Merchant
Mariner Credentials, Navigation.
--and Vessel Inspection Circular No. 04-08 (NVIC 04-08).
--Discussion of the development of Designated Medical Examiners.
--Aging Mariners--Presentation to address the committee on the concerns
with aging mariners. Discuss/Present how medical issues impact mariners
as they age and the aged mariner is normally your more competent
mariner.

    (8) Acceptance of task statements by committee and establishment of
work groups;

Day 2

    Work groups meetings on tasks accepted by the committee.

Day 3

    (1) Report of working groups;
    (2) Public comments/presentations; and
    (3) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.

    Dated: August 24, 2011.
J. A. Watson,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Prevention Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-22197 Filed 8-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 112 (Monday, June 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34378]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14053]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-71-000]

 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 1, 2012, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824(e), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(PJM) filed proposed revisions to the Amended and Restated Operating
Agreement of PJM Interconnection L.L.C. (Operating Agreement) to base
the calculation of marginal transmission line losses on the
transmission facilities used to provide transmission service under
PJM's Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff). PJM states that while
there is a consensus among PJM stakeholders (although not unanimity)
that the current method of basing marginal losses on all facilities in
the PJM network model should be replaced, necessary changes have not
been approved by the two-thirds supermajority required for amendments
to the Operating Agreement. PJM further states that, upon review of
this matter, the PJM Board of Managers determined that a change in the
marginal losses calculation method is required and, as permitted by the
Operating Agreement, directed PJM staff to ask the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) to approve Operating Agreement
changes under FPA section 206. PJM states that it has served a copy of
its filing on all PJM members and on all state utility regulatory
commissions in the PJM Region.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 22, 2012.

    Dated: June 5, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14053 Filed 6-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P