[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 140 (Wednesday, July 22, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43419-43421]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-504-000]

Dominion South Carolina Gas, Inc; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Columbia to Eastover Project
and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Columbia to Eastover Project
involving construction and operation of facilities by Dominion South
Carolina Gas, Inc (DCG) in Calhoun, Richland, and Lexington Counties,
South Carolina. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before August 17, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on May 29, 2015, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. CP15-504-000 to ensure they are considered as
part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    DCG provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov).

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at
(202) 502-8258 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP15-504-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    DCG proposes the Columbia to Eastover Project to construct and
operate 28 miles of new 8-inch-diameter

pipeline in Calhoun and Richland Counties, South Carolina, with
sections of access roads in Lexington County, South Carolina. The
Project would deliver 18,000 dekatherms per day of firm transmission
natural gas service to International Paper Company to replace the
current use of coal and fuel oil, as well as trucked-delivered natural
gas, as a means of complying with maximum achievable control technology
environmental air quality standards mandated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
    The pipeline would originate from DCG's existing 20-inch-diameter
Salley to Eastman pipeline at the DAK Americas industrial facility. In
addition to the pipeline, DCG proposes to install the following
ancillary facilities:
     a tap and pig launcher; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     a metering and regulation station and pig receiver; and
     eight mainline valves.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 423
acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline.
Following construction, DCG would maintain about 121 acres for
permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored and revert to former uses. About 75 percent of the
proposed pipeline route parallels existing pipeline or utility rights-
of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     endangered and threatened species;
     cultural resources;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before making our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues of
this project to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the
EA.\4\ Agencies that would like to request cooperating agency status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided under the
Public Participation section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, aboveground
facilities, and access roads). Our EA for this project will document
our findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the
status of consultations under Section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental interest groups; Native American Tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also includes
all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations)
who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used
temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain
distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on
the project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the
analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to
this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed project.
    If we publish and distribute the EA, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment. If you would
prefer to receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD
version or would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please
return the attached Information Request (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to

intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in the User's
Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-
504). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: July 16, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17944 Filed 7-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 18 (Monday, January 28, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5859-5860]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01668]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of New Approval of Information Collection: Critical Parts for
Airplane Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval for a new information collection.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is amending the airworthiness
standards for airplane propellers. This action will define what a
propeller critical part is, require the identification of propeller
critical parts by the manufacturer, and establish engineering,
manufacture, and maintenance processes for those parts. These processes
will be required to be recorded and maintained within company manuals.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by March 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-XXXX.
    Title: Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers.
    Form Numbers: There are no forms associated with this information
collection activity.
    Type of Review: Clearance of a new information collection.
    Background: On December 1, 2011, FAA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking titled ``Critical Parts for Airplane Propellers'' (76 FR
74749). This activity contains new Paperwork Reduction Act
recordkeeping requirements that were not addressed in that notice of
proposed rulemaking, and which are addressed here. The rule will
require that U.S. companies who manufacture critical parts for airplane
propellers update their manuals to record engineering, manufacture, and
maintenance processes for propeller critical parts. There are currently
three U.S. companies who will be required to revise their manuals to
include these processes.
    Respondents: Three manufacturers.
    Frequency: This is a one time requirement.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 40 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 120 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency

will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 22, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-01668 Filed 1-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 164 (Friday, August 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48257-48259]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18459]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92723; File No. SR-LCH SA-2021-002]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; LCH SA; Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Eligible Collateral and Liquidity Risk
Management

August 23, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 18, 2021, Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts
business under the name LCH SA (``LCH SA''), filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change
(``Proposed Rule Change'') described in Items I, II and III below,
which Items have been primarily prepared primarily by LCH SA. 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. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    (a) Banque Centrale de Compensation, which conducts business under
the name LCH SA, is proposing to expand the non-cash collateral that a
Clearing Member \3\ may post with LCH SA to meet the member's margin
requirements (the ``Eligible Collateral'') to include certain
additional non-Euro government bonds by (i) amending its CDS Clearing
Rulebook (the ``Rule Book'') to clarify that such additional non-Euro
government bonds are excluded from the Pledged Eligible Collateral, and
(ii) publishing a new Clearing Notice, in accordance with Article
<IP_ADDRESS> of the CDS Clearing Rule Book, specifying the additional
acceptable non-Euro government bonds. LCH SA is also proposing to
expand the custodians at which Clearing Members may deposit Eligible
Collateral by adding Clearstream Banking Luxembourg as a central
securities depository for LCH SA in Section 3 of the CDS Clearing
Procedures--Collateral, Variation Margin and Cash Payment. Finally, LCH
SA is proposing to amend its Liquidity Risk Modelling Framework (the
``Framework'') to take into account the expanded list of Eligible
Collateral.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
meaning specified in the Rule Book, the Clearing Supplement, the
Procedures and the Clearing Regulations, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, LCH SA 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. LCH SA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Proposed Rule Change is being adopted to expand the non-Euro
government bonds that a Clearing Member may post with LCH SA in order
to satisfy the clearing member's margin requirements. Currently, the
only non-Euro Eligible Collateral are Gilts, issued by the United
Kingdom, and Treasury Bills, issued by the United States. LCH SA is
proposing to expand the list of Eligible Collateral in response to
clearing member requests and in order to harmonize permitted Eligible
Collateral with the Eligible Collateral permitted to satisfy clearing
member margin requirements at LCH SA's affiliate LCH Limited.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ LCH Limited is a recognized central counterparty supervised
in the United Kingdom by the Bank of England and a derivatives
clearing organization registered with the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To effect this change, LCH SA is proposing to issue a new Clearing
Notice identifying the additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral, defined
as ``New Instruments'' in the Clearing Notice.\5\ LCH SA has determined
that (i) each of the non-Euro jurisdictions whose bonds have been added
have a high credit score, and (ii) each of the New Instruments has
sufficient liquidity.\6\ However, because the European Central Bank
will not convert the additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral to Euros
and LCH SA currently does not otherwise have the operational capacity
to convert the additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral to Euros, the
Clearing Notice will also provide that non-Euro Eligible Collateral may
satisfy no more than 15 percent (15%) of a Clearing Member's total
margin requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral, identified as
``New Instruments'' in the Clearing Notice, include: (i) Australian
Treasury Bills and Government Bonds; (ii) Canadian Treasury Bills
and Government Bonds; (iii) Danish Treasury Bills and Government
Bonds; (iv) Japanese Treasury Bills, Treasury Discount Bills, and
Government Bonds; (v) Norwegian Treasury Bills and Government Bonds;
(vi) Swedish Treasury Bills and Government Bonds; and (vii) Swiss
Treasury Bills and Government Bonds. The complete list of Eligible
Collateral, together with all applicable haircuts, is also found on
LCH SA's website as set out in Paragraph 3.9 of the Procedures.
    \6\ Only instruments with a minimum outstanding amount of
[euro]500 million or greater will be eligible to be posted with LCH
SA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Clearing Notice will provide that the New
Instruments will not be eligible as ``Pledged Eligible Collateral''
and, therefore, may not be pledged in accordance with a pledge
agreement entered into between LCH SA

and a clearing member having exercised its option to transfer Eligible
Collateral to LCH SA through a Belgian law security interest.
Accordingly, the definition of ``Pledged Eligible Collateral'' in
Section 1.1.1 of the CDS Clearing Rule Book will be revised to provide
that the term ``Pledged Eligible Collateral'' means ``Eligible
Collateral as described in a Clearing Notice which is pledged in
accordance with a Pledge Agreement.''
    Separately, LCH SA is proposing to revise Section 3 of its CDS
Clearing Procedures--Collateral, Variation Margin and Cash Payment, in
several places to add Clearstream Banking Luxembourg as a central
securities depository for LCH SA.\7\ Finally, as noted above, LCH SA is
also proposing to amend the Framework to take into account the expanded
list of Eligible Collateral. The Framework is one of several policies
and procedures that LCH SA maintains to manage its liquidity risk,
i.e., the risk that LCH SA will not have enough cash available, in
extreme but plausible circumstances, to settle margin payments or
delivery obligations when they become due, in particular upon the
default of a clearing member. The Framework describes the Liquidity
Stress Testing framework by which the Collateral and Liquidity Risk
Management department (``CaLRM'') of LCH Group Holdings Limited (``LCH
Group'') assures that LCH SA has enough cash available to meet any
financial obligations, both expected and unexpected, that may arise
over the liquidation period for each of the clearing services that LCH
SA offers.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, Paragraph 3.4(d)(i); Paragraph 3.10(a), (b) and (c);
and Paragraph 3.12(b) of Section 3 of the CDS Clearing Procedures.
    \8\ In addition to its CDSClear service, LCH SA provides
clearing services in connection with cash equities and derivatives
listed for trading on Euronext (EquityClear), commodity derivatives
listed for trading on Euronext (CommodityClear), and triparty and
bilateral Repo transactions (EuroGC+ and RepoClear).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, because the European Central Bank will not convert
the additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral to Euros and LCH SA
currently does not otherwise have the operational capacity to convert
the additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral to Euros, LCH SA is
proposing to amend Section 4.1.3 and Section 4.1.4 of the Framework to
make clear that the additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral will be
excluded from the calculation of LCH SA's liquidity resources.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, also, Section <IP_ADDRESS>, Assumptions, footnotes 20 and 2;
Section 5.3.5, LCR Calculation, footnote 26; and Section 5.4.3, CC&G
LCR Calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unrelated to the expansion of non-Euro Eligible Collateral, LCH SA
is also proposing to amend the Framework to clarify certain Sections
and update certain tables and formula. In this regard:
     Section 4.1.1, Description of sources of liquidity, will
be revised to clarify that, with limited exceptions,\10\ LCH SA
generally receives Collateral on a full title transfer basis, which
permits LCH SA to use such collateral, to offset it with all related
claims and to consider such Collateral available for liquidity
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The two exceptions are: (i) Collateral deposited under the
regime of pledge; and (ii) Collateral deposited through a central
bank guarantee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 4.1.3, Assessment of assets' liquidity, will be
revised to clarify that Collateral deposited under the pledge regime
may be used for liquidity purposes only if the clearing member pledging
such Collateral has defaulted.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This clarification is repeated in Section 4.1.4, Synthesis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section <IP_ADDRESS>, Update of the figures of the liquidity
injected in the settlement system to smooth settlement activity.
Figures are updated periodically in line with the flow observed on the
CSD and ICSD.
     Section 5.1.1, Overview of the Monitoring liquidity, will
be revised to clarify that LCH SA has a group policy that allows LCH SA
to perform an extraordinary margin call if liquidity deteriorates.
     Section 5.3.1, Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), Overview,
will be revised to explain that the LCR is an internal ratio similar,
but not equivalent, to the banking metric defined in the Basel III
framework and is used to ensure compliance with EMIR.
     Section <IP_ADDRESS>, Liquidity requirements Assumptions per
clearing services RepoClear, will be revised to update the formula for
calculating market risk in RepoClear transactions.
     Section <IP_ADDRESS>, Cash Equity, will be revised to clarify
the treatment of settlement risk to account for early exercise of
American-style options.
     Sections <IP_ADDRESS>, Listed derivatives, <IP_ADDRESS>, Credit
Default Swaps, and 5.3.4, Cover 2 selection, will be revised to clarify
that the calculation of LCR liability components include spread shifts
and implied volatility shifts.
     Section 5.3.4, Clarification that for cover 2 selection
the calculation of stressed VM for Cash Equity and Listed Derivatives
includes scenario based on price shifts and implied volatility shifts.
     Section 5.3.5, A note will be added to specify that the
new non cash securities will be excluded from the LCR assets, in line
with amendment in section 4.1.3.
     Section 5.4.3, A will be added to specify that in line
with general Cover 2 LCR also for the CC&G LCR the new non euro
securities will be excluded from the liquid assets, in line amendments
in sections 4.1.3. and 5.3.5.
     Section 5.5, A duplicated sentence was deleted.
     Section 5.5.1, will be revised to clarify that Non Euro
non cash collateral are not European Central Bank eligible assets and
that when considering multiple defaults the clearing members with the
worst credit quality are assumed defaulting first.
     Appendix 3 and 5 will be updated to add of the overdraft
facility in place with Citibank that allows the CCP to source non Euro
currencies in case of liquidity needs.
2. Statutory Basis
    LCH SA has determined that the Proposed Rule Change is consistent
with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act \12\ and regulations
thereunder applicable to it. Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires,
inter alia, that the rules of a clearing agency should be designed to
``assure the safeguarding of securities and funds that are in its
custody or control or for which it is responsible.'' \13\ In addition,
Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) requires a central counterparty (``CCP'')
that is involved in activities with a more complex risk profile, e.g.,
that provides CCP services for security-based swaps, to maintain and
enforce written policies and procedures reasonably designed to
effectively ``measure, monitor, and manage its credit exposures from
its payment, clearing and settlement processes'' to assure that it
maintains additional financial resources to enable it to cover a wide
range of stress scenarios that include the default of two participant
family clearing members that would potentially cause the largest
aggregate liquidity exposure for the CCP in extreme but plausible
market conditions.\14\ Further, Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(5) requires a CCP
to limit the assets that it accepts as collateral ``to those with low
credit, liquidity and market risks and enforce appropriately
conservative haircuts and concentration limits''.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The additional non-Euro Eligible Collateral that LCH SA is
proposing to permit clearing members to post with

LCH SA to satisfy the clearing member's margin requirements is limited
to sovereign debt that is issued by jurisdictions that have a high
credit score and subject to conservative haircuts. Further, LCH SA has
determined that non-Euro Eligible Collateral may be taken into account
to satisfy no more than 15 percent (15%) of a clearing member's total
margin requirements and, importantly, will be excluded from the
calculation of LCH SA's liquidity resources.\16\ As such, the
amendments to Section 3 of the CDS Clearing Procedures and, in
particular, the Framework continue to assure that LCH SA (i) maintains
additional financial resources to enable it to cover a wide range of
stress scenarios, and (ii) limits the assets that it accepts as
collateral to those with low credit, liquidity and market risks and
appropriately conservative haircuts and concentration limits.
Therefore, the amendments are consistent with the requirements of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act and Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(4)(ii) and
Regulation 17Ad-22(e)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Because non-Euro Eligible Collateral may be taken into
account to satisfy no more than 15 percent (15%) of a clearing
member's total margin requirements, LCH SA has determined that
specific concentration limits are unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, inter
alia, that the rules of a clearing agency ``assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds that are in its custody or control or for which it
is responsible.'' \17\ The amendments to the Framework unrelated to the
expansion of non-Euro Eligible Collateral clarify certain Sections and
update certain tables and formula. As such, the clarifications set out
in the amended Framework enhance LCH SA's ability to assure the
safeguarding of securities and funds that are in its custody or control
or for which it is responsible. For example, the amendments clarify
that: (i) LCH SA generally receives Collateral on a full title transfer
basis, which permits LCH SA to use such collateral, to offset it with
all related claims and to consider such Collateral available for
liquidity purposes; (ii) Collateral deposited under the pledge regime
may be used for liquidity purposes only if the clearing member pledging
such Collateral has defaulted; (iii) LCH SA is able to perform an
extraordinary margin call if liquidity deteriorates; and (iv) the
calculation of LCR liability components include spread shifts and
implied volatility shifts. The amendments to the Framework, therefore,
are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act requires that the rules of a
clearing agency not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\18\ LCH SA does
not believe the Proposed Rule Change would have any impact, or impose
any burden, on competition. The Proposed Rule Change does not address
any competitive issue or have any impact on the competition among
central counterparties. LCH SA operates an open access model, and the
Proposed Rule Change will have no effect on this model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the Proposed Rule Change have not been
solicited or received. LCH SA will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by LCH SA.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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:
     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-LCH SA-2021-002 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-LCH SA-2021-002. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of LCH SA and on LCH SA's website
at https://www.lch.com/resources/rulebooks/proposed-rule-changes.
    All comments received will be posted without change. Persons
submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit
personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-LCH SA-2021-002 and should
be submitted on or before September 17, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18459 Filed 8-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 7, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12713-12715]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04182]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 43 / Tuesday, March 7, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8839; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-19]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Ohio Towns;
Findlay, OH; Ashland, OH; Celina, OH; Circleville, OH; Columbus, OH;
Defiance, OH; Hamilton, OH; Lima, OH; and London, OH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace designated as a surface
area at Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH; and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ashland County Airport,
Ashland, OH; Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH; Pickaway County Memorial
Airport, Circleville, OH; Ross County Airport, Chillicothe, OH;
Fairfield County Airport, Lancaster, OH; Defiance Memorial Airport,
Defiance, OH; Findlay Airport; Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH; Butler
County Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH; Lima Allen County Airport,
Lima, OH; and Madison County Airport, London, OH. Decommissioning of
non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches,
and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this
action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. This action also updates the
geographic coordinates for Port Columbus International Airport; Findlay
Airport; Ashland County Airport; Samaritan Hospital Heliport, Ashland,
OH; Lakefield Airport; Ross County Airport; Defiance Regional Medical
Center Heliport, Defiance, OH; Bluffton Airport; Lima Allen County
Airport; and St. Rita's Medical Center Heliport, Lima, OH, to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database. Also, the names of Samaritan
Hospital Heliport (formerly Samaritian Regional Health System),
Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport (formerly Defiance Hospital),
and Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field (formerly Butler County
Regional Airport) are being updated to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 22, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of
FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Findlay
Airport, Findlay, OH; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Ashland County Airport, Ashland, OH;
Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH; Pickaway County Memorial Airport,
Circleville, OH; Ross County Airport, Chillicothe, OH; Fairfield County
Airport, Lancaster, OH; Defiance Memorial Airport, Defiance, OH;
Findlay Airport; Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH; Butler County Airport-
Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH; Lima Allen County Airport, Lima, OH; and
Madison County Airport, London, OH.

History

    On September 27, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 66221) Docket No. FAA-
2016-8839, to modify Class E airspace designated as a surface area at
Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH; and Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Ashland County Airport, Ashland, OH;
Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH; Pickaway County Memorial Airport,
Circleville, OH; Ross County Airport, Chillicothe, OH; Fairfield County
Airport, Lancaster, OH; Defiance Memorial Airport, Defiance, OH;
Findlay Airport; Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH; Butler County Airport-
Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH; Lima Allen County Airport, Lima, OH; and
Madison County Airport, London, OH. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Subsequent to publication, the FAA discovered a typographical error
in the geographic coordinates for Yellow Bud VOR (lat. 39[deg]31'2637''
N. vice lat. 39[deg]31'37'' N.) listed in the boundary description for
Circleville, OH. This error has been corrected in this action.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations

listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies:
    Class E airspace designated as a surface area at Findlay Airport,
Findlay, OH, by removing the segments extending from the 4.3-mile
radius 7.4 miles south and northeast of the airport, and updating the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:
    By updating the geographic coordinates of Ashland County Airport
and noting the name change of Samaritan Hospital Heliport (formerly
Samaritian Regional Health System), Ashland, OH, to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of
Lakefield Airport, Celina, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates
of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 10-mile radius) of
Pickaway County Memorial Airport, Circleville, OH, with an extension
from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.5 miles north of the airport, and within
a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 9.1-mile radius) of Ross County
Airport, Chillicothe, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates of the
Ross County Airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    By updating the geographic coordinates of Port Columbus
International Airport, Columbus, OH, and amending the radius of the
Fairfield County Airport, Lancaster, OH, to within a 7.0-mile radius
(increased from a 6.4-mile radius);
    Within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Defiance
Memorial Airport, Defiance, OH, and updates the geographic coordinates
and name of Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport (formerly
Defiance Hospital), Defiance, OH, to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.8-mile radius (reduced from a 7.4-mile radius) of
Findlay Airport, Findlay, OH, and within a 7.2-mile radius (increased
from a 6.6-mile radius) of Bluffton Airport, Findlay, OH, and updates
the geographic coordinates of these airports to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.9-mile radius (increased from a 6.6-mile radius) of
Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field, Hamilton, OH, and updates
the name of the airport (formerly Butler County Regional Airport) to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    By removing the Allen County VOR from the boundary description of
Lima Allen County Airport, Lima, OH, and updating the name of St.
Rita's Medical Center Heliport (formerly Saint Rita's Medical Center),
Lima, OH, and updating the geographic and point in space coordinates of
these airports to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    And by removing the segment extending from the 6.4-mile radius 7.4
miles west of Madison County Airport, London, OH.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV
procedures at the above airports for the safety and management of the
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these
airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AGL OH E2 Findlay, OH [Amended]

Findlay Airport, OH
    (Lat. 41[deg]00'43'' N., long. 83[deg]40'07'' W.)
    Lutz Airport
    (Lat. 40[deg]57'42'' N., long. 83[deg]35'43'' W.)

    Within a 4.3-mile radius of the Findlay Airport excluding that
portion within a 1-mile radius of the Lutz Airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Ashland, OH [Amended]

Ashland County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]54'11'' N., long. 82[deg]15'20'' W.)
Samaritan Hospital Heliport, OH, Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 40[deg]51'34'' N., long. 82[deg]18'30'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Ashland County Airport, and within a 6-
mile radius of the Point in Space serving Samaritan Hospital
Heliport, excluding that airspace which lies within the Mansfield,
OH, Class E airspace area.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Celina, OH [Amended]

Lakefield Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]29'03'' N., long. 84[deg]33'30'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Lakefield Airport, excluding that
airspace within the Wapakoneta, OH, Class E airspace area.

AGL OH E5 Circleville, OH [Amended]

Circleville, Pickaway County Memorial Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]30'58'' N., long. 82[deg]58'56'' W.)
Chillicothe, Ross County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]26'26'' N., long. 83[deg]01'23'' W.)
Yellow Bud VOR
    (Lat. 39[deg]31'37'' N., long. 82[deg]58'41'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Pickaway County Memorial Airport, and
within 2.9 miles either side of the 345[deg] radial from the Yellow
Bud VOR extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 10.5 miles north of
the airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of the Ross County
Airport, excluding that airspace within the Waverly, OH, Class E
Airspace area.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Columbus, OH [Amended]

Columbus, Port Columbus International Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]59'49'' N., long. 82[deg]53'32'' W.)
Columbus, Rickenbacker International Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]48'50'' N., long. 82[deg]55'40'' W.)
Columbus, Ohio State University Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]04'47'' N., long. 83[deg]04'23'' W.)
Columbus, Bolton Field Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]54'04'' N., long. 83[deg]08'13'' W.)
Columbus, Darby Dan Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]56'31'' N., long. 83[deg]12'18'' W.)
Lancaster, Fairfield County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]45'20'' N., long. 82[deg]39'26'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Port Columbus International Airport, and
within 3.3 miles either side of the 094[deg] bearing from Port
Columbus International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to
12.1 miles east of the airport, and within a 7-mile radius of
Rickenbacker International Airport, and within 4 miles either side
of the 045[deg] bearing from Rickenbacker International Airport
extending from the 7-mile radius to 12.5 miles northeast of the
airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Ohio State University
Airport, and within a 7.4-mile radius of Bolton Field Airport, and
within a 7-mile radius of Fairfield County Airport, and within a
6.5-mile radius of Darby Dan Airport, excluding that airspace within
the London, OH, Class E airspace area.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Defiance, OH [Amended]

Defiance Memorial Airport, OH
    (Lat. 41[deg]20'15'' N., long. 84[deg]25'44'' W.)
Defiance Regional Medical Center Heliport, OH, Point in Space
Coordinates
    (Lat. 41[deg]17'53'' N., long. 84[deg]22'40'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Defiance Memorial Airport, and within a
6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving Defiance Regional
Medical Center Heliport.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Findlay, OH [Amended]

Findlay Airport, OH
    (Lat. 41[deg]00'43'' N., long. 83[deg]40'07'' W.)
Bluffton Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]53'08'' N., long. 83[deg]52'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Findlay Airport and within a 7.2-mile
radius of Bluffton Airport.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Hamilton, OH [Amended]

Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan Field, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]21'50'' N., long. 84[deg]31'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.9-mile radius of Butler County Regional Airport-Hogan
Field.
* * * * *

AGL OH E5 Lima, OH [Amended]

Lima Allen County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 40[deg]42'27'' N., long. 84[deg]01'37'' W.)
St. Rita's Medical Center Heliport, OH, Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 40[deg]44'26'' N., long. 84[deg]07'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Lima Allen County Airport, and within a
6-mile radius of the Point in Space serving St. Rita's Medical
Center Heliport, excluding the airspace within the Findlay, OH,
Class E airspace area.

AGL OH E5 London, OH [Amended]

Madison County Airport, OH
    (Lat. 39[deg]55'58'' N., long. 83[deg]27'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Madison County Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 22, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-04182 Filed 3-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 77 (Tuesday, April 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22485-22486]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2386-003]

The City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Department; Notice of Intent
To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and
Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2386-003.
    c. Date Filed: January 31, 2014.
    d. Submitted By: City of Holyoke Gas & Electric Department.
    e. Name of Project: Holyoke No. 1 Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Between the first and second level canals on the
Holyoke Canal System adjacent to the Connecticut River, in the city of
Holyoke in Hampden County, Massachusetts. The project does not occupy
federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Paul Ducheney, Superintendent,
Holyoke Gas & Electric, 99 Suffolk Street, Holyoke, MA 01040; (413)
536-9340<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Adam Beeco at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Holyoke Gas and Electric filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on January 31, 2014. Holyoke Gas and
Electric provided public notice of its request on February 6, 2014. In
a letter dated April 15, 2014, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Holyoke Gas and Electric's request to use
the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing

regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating consultation with
the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer, as required by
section 106, National Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Holyoke Gas and Electric as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Holyoke Gas and Electric filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2386. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10, each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by January 31,
2017.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: April 15, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-09068 Filed 4-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67721-67722]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-161-000]

Bishop Hill Energy LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bishop Hill Energy LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard

to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part
34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is
November 15, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 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>.

    Dated: October 26, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-28340 Filed 11-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 152 (Thursday, August 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 47788]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP20-496-000]

Andalusian Energy, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on July 20, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, Andalusian Energy, LLC (Andalusian) filed a
petition for declaratory order requesting the Commission issue an order
stating that Andalusian's: (1) Proposed compressed natural gas (CNG)
production facility; (2) the docks from which Andalusian will export
the CNG; and (3) Andalusian's proposal to construct an on-site truck
fueling station, a bunkering pipeline to transport end-use fuel to
vessels, and provide an industrial fueling service to industrial
customers in Texas are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction
under section 3 or section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b and
717f (2018).
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    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 may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 20, 2020.

    Dated: July 31, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-17188 Filed 8-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Technical Support Document (TSD)

for the Transport Rule

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491

Alternative Significant Contribution Approaches Evaluated

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

July 2010

Alternative Significant Contribution Approaches Evaluated

The Transport Rule preamble discusses EPA’s proposed approach to
define emissions that constitute each upwind state’s significant
contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance
downwind.   This Technical Support Document (TSD) discusses alternative
approaches that EPA evaluated.  The TSD is organized as follows:

1.  Introduction.

2.  Air quality only approaches.

3.  Cost per ton approach with uniform cost in all states.

4.  Cost per air quality impact.

5.  “Binning” of states based on air quality impact.

1. Introduction

Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) in the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to
prohibit emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any
primary or secondary NAAQS.  The proposed Transport Rule would define
these prohibited upwind state emissions with respect to the existing
8-hour ozone and fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), i.e., the 1997 8-hour ozone and annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  Section IV.C and IV.D in the
Transport Rule preamble discusses EPA’s proposed approach to define
emissions that constitute significant contribution and interference with
maintenance in detail.

 EPA developed and evaluated a number of different approaches attempting
to quantify the emissions that are defined as each state’s significant
contribution and interference with maintenance, consistent with the
judicial opinions interpreting section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Clean
Air Act (see discussion of judicial opinions in preamble section IV.G).
The Agency also held several “listening sessions” with interested
parties and stakeholder groups and received written comments from
several stakeholder groups.  EPA considered these ideas and suggestions
as it developed alternatives and further explored the most promising
approaches.

This TSD describes and discusses the alternative approaches EPA
evaluated for defining significant contribution and interference with
maintenance.  EPA is not proposing any of the alternative approaches

The alternative approaches described in this TSD were listed in section
IV.H of the preamble.  EPA evaluated several “general” classes of
approaches.  These include approaches based on: (1) only air quality;
(2) only cost, with a uniform cost in all states; (3) cost per air
quality impact (e.g., dollars per g/m3 or dollars per ppb); and (4)
binning of states based on air quality impact.  Often, multiple
variations on each of the “general” approach classes were evaluated.
 Each of the general approaches is described in a separate section,
below.

Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5, below, describe the approaches.

2. Air quality only approaches.

A number of air quality only approaches were considered.  Generally,
these approaches utilize air quality contribution modeling, then
determine reductions in emissions based solely on the results of this
modeling. These approaches include the “fixed air quality threshold
limit” approach and the “cumulative air quality threshold”
approach.

a. Fixed air quality threshold limit approach: Under this approach, EPA
would define a threshold limit value for an air quality contribution
from an upwind state to a downwind monitor.  All upwind states would
have to reduce emissions such that their contribution to all downwind
monitors is at (or below) the level of the threshold.  The amount of air
quality contribution above the threshold limit would determine the
emission reduction required.  The amount of air quality impact above the
threshold limit to the maximally-impacted downwind
nonattainment/maintenance monitor would determine the amount of
significant contribution for the upwind state.  The contributions from
an upwind state to its maximal downwind nonattainment and maintenance
monitor can be found in Tables IV.C-13, 16, and 19 of the preamble.

Generally, the largest contributors to a downwind monitor are from
nearby states (and the contributions can be quite large). Since there
are a number of nonattainment and maintenance monitors at locations
throughout the eastern United States, most upwind states have a
substantial air quality contribution to at least one monitoring site in
a downwind state (as an example, Table 2-1 summarizes the air quality
contributions for annual PM2.5).  As a result, assessed across all
states and monitors, the magnitude of the emissions reductions necessary
to reduce these contributions to a lower threshold level (e.g., 0.15
µg/m3) for nearly all of the upwind states would be very large and, by
consequence, lead to a cumulative reduction of air quality impact well
beyond what would be required for each individual downwind monitor to
reach attainment/maintenance.  The magnitude of emissions reductions
necessary to reduce the emissions to a higher threshold level (e.g., 1.0
µg/m3) results in fewer states making reductions, with the cumulative
air quality improvements possibly insufficient for each individual
downwind monitor to reach attainment/maintenance.  The emissions
reductions for some of the states might still be very large.

g/m3), or as specified in the Transport Rule proposed approach (i.e.,
defined as 1% of the NAAQS or 0.15 g/m3 for the annual PM2.5
standard) result in emissions reductions from nearly all upwind states
well beyond what would be needed for all of the downwind areas to attain
the standards and possibly exceeding what might be achievable through
available control measures.  For example, if a state were required to
reduce its NOx emissions from all sources by 92.5% (as described in the
example above), this would require elimination of nearly all NOx
emissions from the power generation sector and impose dramatic
reductions across many other sectors (including mobile).

Table 2-1.  Maximum Downwind Air Quality Contributions to Nonattainment
or Maintenance for Annual PM2.5 (g/m3) and the Percent Reductions in
All Anthropogenic SO2 and NOx Emissions that would be Needed to Reduce
the Maximum Contributions to Threshold Levels of 0.15 g/m3 and 0.5
g/m3, Respectively.

Upwind State	Maximum Downwind Contribution to Nonattainment or
Maintenance for

Annual PM2.5 (g/m3)	 	Percent Reduction if Threshold is 0.15 g/m3
 	Percent Reduction if Threshold is 0.50 g/m3

Alabama 	0.46	 	67%

0%

Arkansas 	0.09	 	0%

0%

Connecticut 	0.09	 	0%

0%

Delaware 	0.20	 	25%

0%

Florida 	0.29	 	48%

0%

Georgia 	0.63	 	76%

21%

Illinois 	1.01	 	85%

50%

Indiana 	2.09	 	93%

76%

Iowa 	0.31	 	52%

0%

Kansas 	0.09	 	0%

0%

Kentucky 	1.68	 	91%

70%

Louisiana 	0.34	 	56%

0%

Maine 	0.02	 	0%

0%

Maryland 	0.62	 	76%

19%

Massachusetts 	0.13	 	0%

0%

Michigan 	0.72	 	79%

31%

Minnesota 	0.19	 	21%

0%

Mississippi 	0.07	 	0%

0%

Missouri 	1.38	 	89%

64%

Nebraska 	0.08	 	0%

0%

New Hampshire 	0.02	 	0%

0%

New Jersey 	0.68	 	78%

26%

New York 	0.49	 	69%

0%

North Carolina 	0.19	 	21%

0%

North Dakota 	0.05	 	0%

0%

Ohio 	2.03	 	93%

75%

Oklahoma 	0.08	 	0%

0%

Pennsylvania 	1.60	 	91%

69%

Rhode Island 	0.01	 	0%

0%

South Carolina 	0.26	 	42%

0%

South Dakota 	0.02	 	0%

0%

Tennessee 	0.68	 	78%

26%

Texas 	0.13	 	0%

0%

Vermont 	0	 	0%

0%

Virginia 	0.37	 	59%

0%

West Virginia 	1.17	 	87%

57%

Wisconsin 	0.46	 	67%

0%

 Furthermore, the emissions reductions necessary to reduce all states’
contributions below a 0.15 µg/m3 threshold would be well beyond what
would be needed for all of the downwind areas to attain the standards.
Likewise, if the threshold levels were increased to substantially higher
levels (e.g., 0.5 g/m3, as seen in Table 2-1), while the consequence
would be that fewer states would be required to make reductions (e.g.,
12 states compared with 23 states at thresholds of 0.5 and 0.15,
respectively), the emissions reductions required of those states would
still be significant since several states have large air quality
contributions to their maximally-impacted downwind monitors (Table 2-1).

One of the technical challenges of this approach is that there is not a
linkage between the levels of emissions reductions for each upwind state
and the air quality levels at each of the downwind monitors.  This
approach does not consider the cumulative air quality impact of
emissions reductions in multiple upwind states.  Consequently, depending
on the threshold chosen (e.g., 0.15 µg/m3), there could be substantial
over-control compared with cumulative air quality improvements needed
for all monitoring locations to meet the NAAQS standards.

b. Cumulative air quality threshold approach:  This air quality-only
approach recognizes the multi-state nature of the sources contributing
to downwind air quality.  It uses an air quality threshold to identify
states making a significant contribution; all upwind states contributing
above the threshold would be required to reduce their individual air
quality contribution by an amount that is proportional to their
contribution.

For example, consider a downwind monitoring location that is 1.2 µg/m3
above the NAAQS standard and is receiving 4.8 µg/m3 from all upwind
states combined (states A, B, C, and D) which are contributing 2.4, 1.2,
0.8, and 0.4 µg/m3, respectively.  The cumulative air quality approach
would guarantee that a downwind monitoring location would receive a
defined air quality improvement or, alternatively, would not receive
more than a defined contribution from all upwind states.

A requirement could be made that the location receive 1.2 µg/m3 of
relief from the upwind states, or alternatively, that the upwind states
could contribute no more than 3.6 µg/m3 to that location, with
reductions made in proportion to the upwind state’s individual
contributions.  Since the amount of relief is simply the remaining
contribution subtracted from the original total contribution, these two
cumulative approach variations produce identical results.

For both cumulative approaches, the result is that all states would be
required to reduce their emissions by the same percentage (which would
reduce their impact in direct proportion to their original
contribution).  Using the example contributions, with a 25% overall
reduction in the upwind contribution (1.2 µg/m3 out of 4.8 µg/m3), the
new contribution of states A, B, C, and D would be 75% of their original
contributions (or 25% less than their original contributions) or 1.8,
0.9, 0.6, and 0.3 µg/m3, respectively.

However, since all contributing states would be required to do the same
percent reduction of existing emissions, states that had previously
implemented stringent control programs might not be able to achieve the
required reductions using existing control technologies, while others
that had previously done little (and presumably have larger absolute
contributions) would achieve their required reductions using
significantly less than optimal control technologies.

There were two additional difficulties with the cumulative air quality
approaches.  First, it was not clear how to apportion the responsibility
for air quality reductions required from upwind states under section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) relative to the responsibility for the state
containing the monitor.  Second, while it is possible to determine an
emission reduction percentage if there is a single downwind monitor,
most upwind states contribute to multiple downwind monitors (in multiple
states) and would have a different reduction percentage for each one.
The technical difficulty lies in determining what percent emission
reduction is appropriate for each upwind state.  For example, if the
“maximum” reductions were applied to each upwind state, the
cumulative air quality result would be more than was needed for each
area to meet the NAAQS since the maximum contribution for each upwind
state is to a different monitor.

3. Cost per ton approach with uniform cost in all states.

Variations of a uniform cost per ton approach were evaluated.  This type
of approach has been successfully implemented before, with excellent
environmental results (i.e., the NOx Budget Trading Program).

For the uniform cost per ton approaches evaluated, if a state’s air
quality impact to a nonattainment/maintenance monitor in a downwind
state was larger than a specified air quality threshold, EPA evaluated
that state’s contribution further to determine what, if any, of that
state’s contribution was “significant”.  The “significant”
portion of a state’s contribution is defined as the portion that could
be eliminated through the application of “cost-effective” controls.
  “Cost-effective” would be defined using the cost to reduce a ton
of emissions of pollutant, and would be set at a particular dollar per
ton value.  Sources in covered states would then need to apply all
available controls (calculated using the IPM model) to that particular
value.  Following the model of the successful NOx Budget Program
approach, a single cost per ton value for all states in the region would
be identified through analysis of the cost effectiveness of other recent
control actions.  For this approach, the results of the emissions
reductions from each prospective cost per ton value in the cost analysis
would be assessed using air quality modeling.

Compared with the way that a uniform cost methodology was applied in the
past, which focused on the cost-effectiveness of controls compared with
other rules and programs, EPA believes that a better approach to define
significant contribution and interference with maintenance is to jointly
consider both cost and air quality factors.

g/m3 or ppb removed).

Two “cost per air quality impact” approaches were evaluated. These
approaches attempt to balance the cost and air quality impacts of
emission reductions from upwind states affecting a particular downwind
monitor such that each dollar spent to reduce upwind emissions results
in the same downwind impact.  This means that more reductions would be
required in locations where the reductions will have a greater air
quality impact on the downwind monitor and fewer reductions would be
required where they will have less impact.  When air quality problems
are regionally widespread (i.e., there are a lot of monitors, each
requiring substantial air quality improvements to attain the air quality
targets), most upwind areas end up being close to some downwind area
with an air quality problem.  Even though the upwind state would not be
required to reduce a great deal for monitoring sites that are farther
away, it would still have larger reduction requirements for monitors
that are closer.  Therefore, with a larger number of geographically
distributed monitors with air quality problems, the results of such an
approach lead to reduction requirements similar to those of a uniform
cost approach.

g/m3 reduced).  This was done by dividing the ratio of the marginal
cost per ton of emissions reductions by the air quality impact per ton
of emissions for each state.  All states would be required to achieve
all emissions reductions necessary for the cumulative air quality impact
to equal the cumulative air quality improvement needed for the monitor
to reach attainment/maintenance.  In other words, the total air quality
impact reduction required equaled the sum (across all states) of each
state’s air quality impact per ton of emissions multiplied by the
number of tons it reduced.

As an illustrative example of the first cost per air quality impact
approach, we could consider a particular monitor that is being impacted
by five states (A, B, C, D, and E).  The hypothetical contributions of
sulfate from each state are 2.4, 1.2, 0.8, 0.4, and 0.3 µg/m3,
respectively.  The hypothetical emissions of SO2 from each state are
2,000; 100,000; 8,000; 10,000; and 150,000 tons, respectively.  On a
state-by-state basis, if the sulfate contribution is divided by the
number of tons of emissions, the number of µg/m3 per ton of emissions
equals 0.0012, 0.000012, 0.0001, 0.00004, and 0.000002 for states A, B,
C, D, and E.  The cost-effectiveness of emissions reductions from each
state (on a cost per ton per µg/m3 per ton basis) can be evaluated.
For this particular monitor, state A has the largest impact per ton of
emissions.  It is most cost-effective to have state A implement the
costliest controls, while the other states implement less expensive
controls.

For this example, let’s assume that the emissions reductions for all
states lead to a cumulative air quality benefit such that the downwind
monitor achieves the air quality improvement required.  Let’s further
assume that this occurs when state A is implementing all SO2 emissions
reductions up to $10,000 a ton. If state A had to pay $10,000 to reduce
a ton of emissions, the cost per µg/m3 of that ton would be $ 8,333,333
per µg/m3.  This is calculated by dividing $10,000 by the number of
µg/m3 per ton of emissions (i.e., 0.0012 in this example).  The cost
per µg/m3 of this particular ton of reductions from state A is high,
but removing this ton has a large impact on the air quality at the
monitor. For the other states, the same cost per µg/m3 value
($8,333,333 per µg/m3) is reached at much lower marginal cost of
reduction levels: $100, $833.33, $333.33, and $16.67 per ton for states
B, C, D, and E, respectively.  These relatively low marginal cost levels
mean that these states make few emissions reductions, since they are
only making all emission reductions available at or below the marginal
cost levels applicable to their state.  The reason is that, even though
the tons are relatively cheap to reduce, they are not very effective at
reducing pollution levels downwind (the air quality impact per ton
values are small), because the monitor being assessed is farther away.

So far, this procedure has assumed that we identified the “right”
cost per impact level (i.e., $10,000 per ton for state A, leading to a
cost per air quality impact value of $8,333,333 per µg/m3).  How was
this cost per air quality impact value identified?  The procedure
requires an iterative approach, where a particular cost per air quality
impact value is identified, and the result translated to a
state-specific marginal cost of reduction level which, in turn, leads to
a particular emission reduction for each state.  The emissions
reductions are then translated to air quality improvements by
multiplying the emissions reductions by the air quality improvement per
ton of reductions.  The total air quality benefit at the downwind
monitor is the sum of the number of tons each state reduced multiplied
by its air quality impact per ton.  There is a particular cost per air
quality impact value where the cumulative benefit of reduction from all
upwind states will equal the total benefit required for the monitor to
reach the attainment/maintenance target level.

For a particular monitor, the result of this approach is to ensure that
all of the emissions reductions required for bringing the monitor into
attainment/maintenance are below a particular cost per impact value.
Thus, this approach should theoretically yield a relatively
cost-effective strategy for attainment/maintenance for a particular
monitor.

Assessed across all states that impact a particular monitor, the costs
and emission reduction requirements varied widely between states (i.e.,
the marginal cost levels would be very different from each other for
different states).  For a particular state impacting a number of
different monitors, the marginal cost levels and emission reduction
requirements varied widely from monitor to monitor.  One of the
conclusions of the analysis for this approach was that it appeared that,
as part of the cost-effective method for many locations to reach
attainment, the state containing the monitor needed to implement all
available (e.g., up through expensive) control technologies.  This was
because the air quality impact per ton of emissions for the state on its
own local monitor was high.  In contrast, states located far from the
monitor had much smaller impacts per ton of emissions.  Consequently,
only extremely low-cost controls would be required for those upwind
states.

On a single monitor basis, this approach is effective and logical.
However, it relies on an extremely high level of accuracy in both the
emissions modeling (estimating the magnitude and location of the
emissions reductions) and the air quality modeling (estimating the
downwind effects of the emissions reductions).  EPA concluded that
finer-scale emissions data from all sectors (not just the EGU sector) up
to very high marginal costs and fine-scale air quality modeling could be
needed to resolve differences in cost per air quality impact on the
downwind monitor from all emissions sources in the surrounding area.
EPA concluded that these data and modeling techniques do not exist
and/or are too computationally demanding to be operationally
implemented.

Such an approach is particularly challenging in larger states.  The air
quality impact of a power plant on a downwind site can be dependent on
where it is geographically situated.  Accounting for any such impacts
further increases the complexities described above.

When this approach variation was set aside due to the air quality and
emissions modeling technical challenges, significant additional
challenges had been identified and remained unresolved.  One of the
remaining challenges was determining a method to identify a single
reduction requirement for each upwind state from the myriad disparate
reduction requirements from individual monitors that it was affecting in
downwind states, without leading to over or under control when the
cumulative air quality benefits of reductions from all other upwind
states were assessed across the region.   EPA also concluded that it is
not sufficient to select a particular cost per air quality impact value
(i.e., a particular dollar per µg/m3 value), since this value is
determined based on a particular air quality impact value ascribed to a
particular downwind monitor.  The unique critical dollar per µg/m3
values associated with each individual monitor can be used to
back-calculate unique critical marginal costs for each state, for each
monitor.  Consequently, as with the “fixed air quality threshold
limit” air quality only approach, each state would have many different
possible emission reduction levels (one associated with each downwind
monitor).  EPA concluded that it would be difficult to determine each
state’s reduction requirement, since the cumulative air quality
improvement at each downwind monitor was not considered in this step.
In the illustrative example, state A’s critical marginal cost was
$10,000 per ton.  For a different monitor, located far away from state
A, state A’s critical marginal cost would likely be lower (perhaps
$200 per ton), while state B’s critical marginal cost could be $15,000
per ton (state B is located close to the monitor).  What reductions
should state A and B make?  If both are required to do the maximum, the
cumulative air quality benefit would go well beyond what would have been
needed at either downwind monitor.

The second variation of the “cost per air quality impact” approach
assessed the cumulative cost per total air quality impact, rather than
the incremental benefit at particular marginal cost levels. The total
cost per total air quality benefit was calculated for each state,
monitor linkage, and several modeled emission levels and marginal cost
levels. The total cost was calculated as the sum of the emissions
reductions multiplied by the marginal cost per ton of each emission
reduction.  For example, if the cost was evaluated at a maximum marginal
cost level of $2,400 per ton for SO2 emissions, the incremental costs of
all marginal cost levels below $2,400 per ton were summed to get the
total cost (cost per ton multiplied by the tons of emissions reduced at
each marginal cost level).  The total air quality benefit was calculated
as the g/m3 or ppb concentration reduction at the maximum marginal
cost.  The total cost per total air quality benefit was found by
dividing the total cost by the total air quality benefit.

g/m3 value of all linkages at $2,400/ton, then the upwind state would
be required to reduce all emissions up to the maximum marginal cost
level ($2,400/ton).  However, if the lowest cost per air quality linkage
at $2,400/ton was higher than the median of all linkages, then the
analysis determined the next highest marginal cost level at which the
lowest cost per air quality linkage was at or below the median.  This
might result in a different marginal cost requirement for some states.
As a result, some states would be required to reduce emissions up to the
maximum marginal cost level of $2,400/ton and some states where the cost
per air quality benefit is high would be required to reduce emissions up
to a lower marginal cost level.

There were several technical challenges with this approach, most related
to setting particular levels for the different parameters.  For example,
it was not clear how to specify the critical cost per air quality value
(i.e., is the median of all the linkages the appropriate cost per air
quality impact value?  Should all linkages count in calculating the
median if there are multiple receptors in a downwind area?).  As a
second example, it was not clear what “maximally-modeled” marginal
cost emission level to use (i.e., $2,400/ton was the example stated
above, but this could have been any number of other marginal cost
levels).  The final cost per air quality answer depends strongly on the
choice of the maximum marginal cost level.  Also, the cost per air
quality benefit varies considerably for SO2 and NOx.  Therefore, the
cost per air quality could be calculated independently for SO2 and NOx.
Combined with separate calculations for annual and daily PM2.5, and
decisions that need to be made at several points in the calculations,
the analysis becomes quite complicated.  Ultimately, we were not able to
generate adequate justifications for the decision points that needed to
be made to support the methodology.

5. “Binning” of states based on air quality impact (i.e., subject
states with higher contribution to greater $ per ton reduction
requirement).

8

9

:

;

K

L

f

:

;

K

"

)

+

.

J

L

O

U

X

b

m

„

î

h

  h

h

kd,

Å欀遤

hÂ

h

- h

h

ôêãÙÒÙÆÙ¿Ù¿ÒÙÒÙÒÙÒÙÒÙãÙ¸±¸ª£¸ã£¸ªœ’
†ª’ªãªãª±ª±ªÙ

 h

h

õîõîõçîõîàîõîÙËÙ¿Ùõ¸±¸õ±õç±çõîõªÙËÙ¿
Ùõ¸ª±ª£œ•ÙËÙ¿ÙªŽõªõ¸

 h

 h

	g/m3) and resulting “bins”, or groups of states (Group A, B, C,
and D), based on three threshold levels (1, 3, and 5%), whether a state
is contributing less than 0.15, between 0.15 and 0.45, between 0.45 and
0.75, or greater than 0.75 g/m3, respectively.

Upwind State	Maximum Downwind Contribution to Nonattainment or
Maintenance for

Annual PM2.5 (g/m3)	 	Bin

Alabama 	0.46	 	Group C

Arkansas 	0.09	 	Group A

Connecticut 	0.09	 	Group A

Delaware 	0.20	 	Group B

Florida 	0.29	 	Group B

Georgia 	0.63	 	Group C

Illinois 	1.01	 	Group D

Indiana 	2.09	 	Group D

Iowa 	0.31	 	Group B

Kansas 	0.09	 	Group A

Kentucky 	1.68	 	Group D

Louisiana 	0.34	 	Group B

Maine 	0.02	 	Group A

Maryland 	0.62	 	Group C

Massachusetts 	0.13	 	Group A

Michigan 	0.72	 	Group C

Minnesota 	0.19	 	Group B

Mississippi 	0.07	 	Group A

Missouri 	1.38	 	Group D

Nebraska 	0.08	 	Group A

New Hampshire 	0.02	 	Group A

New Jersey 	0.68	 	Group C

New York 	0.49	 	Group C

North Carolina 	0.19	 	Group B

North Dakota 	0.05	 	Group A

Ohio 	2.03	 	Group D

Oklahoma 	0.08	 	Group A

Pennsylvania 	1.60	 	Group D

Rhode Island 	0.01	 	Group A

South Carolina 	0.26	 	Group B

South Dakota 	0.02	 	Group A

Tennessee 	0.68	 	Group C

Texas 	0.13	 	Group A

Vermont 	0	 	Group A

Virginia 	0.37	 	Group B

West Virginia 	1.17	 	Group D

Wisconsin 	0.46	 	Group C

As a particular variation of the approach evaluated by EPA, two
threshold levels (rather than three) were considered (e.g., 1% and 4% of
the respective NAAQS).  States were included in one of three groups
based on each state’s air quality contribution to their
maximally-impacted downwind monitor:  states below both thresholds,
which would not be included in the program; states above the 1%
threshold, but below the second threshold (4%), which would be subject
to some “basic” reductions; and a third “advanced” group for
states above both threshold levels (above 4%), which would be subject to
large emission reduction requirements.

For the magnitude of the reductions from different groups of states,
different levels of “cost-effective” controls would be applied.  As
an illustrative example, the “advanced” group might need to make all
reductions possible for less than $2,000 per ton, while the less
stringent “basic” group might need to make all reductions possible
for less than $500 per ton.

EPA believes there are a number of questions that need to be asked with
the “binning” of states based on air quality approach.  First, it
would be necessary to pick the number of different threshold levels
(and, thus, the number of groups of states as well as their
composition).  For example, why two threshold levels, and not three or
more?  Second, it would be necessary to pick the cost threshold for each
different group.

 The D.C. Circuit opinion granting petitions for review of the CAIR
indirectly discussed the use of fixed air quality thresholds.  It noted
that “[w]e observe initially that state SO2 budgets are unrelated to
the criterion (the “air quality factor”) by which EPA included
states in CAIR’s SO2 program. Significant contributors, for purposes
of inclusion only, are those states EPA projects will contribute at
least 0.2 μg/m3 of PM2.5 to a nonattainment area in another state.
While we would have expected EPA to require states to eliminate
contributions above this threshold, EPA claims to have used the measure
of significance we mentioned above: emissions that sources within a
state can eliminate by applying “highly cost-effective controls.””
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 916-17 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

 The air quality benefit for each receptor for a particular cost level
was calculated using the Air Quality Assessment Tool.

 This particular set of bins was specifically recommended by a
stakeholder group in a letter to EPA (“LADCO Recommendations to EPA on
a CAIR Replacement Rule”).

  PAGE  1