[Federal Register: November 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 216)]
[Notices]
[Page 68118-68120]
[DOCID:fr09no05-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52724; File No. SR-CHX-2005-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Permit Execution of Mixed Lot Cross and Cross With Size Orders in the
Electronic Book

November 2, 2005.
    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 October 11, 2005, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Incorporated (``CHX''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the
Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission.\5\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \5\ The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-
day operative delay, as specified in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR
240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend CHX Article XXA, Rule 2, to permit the
execution of mixed lot cross and cross with size orders in the
electronic book. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth
below. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are in
[brackets].
* * * * *

ARTICLE XXA

Operation of the Electronic Book

* * * * *

Eligible Orders

    RULE 2. (a) Except for cross and cross with size orders, which may
be sent to the electronic book in mixed lot increments, a[A]ll orders
sent to the electronic book must be round-lot limit orders,
specifically designated in the manner specified by the Exchange to
confirm that they are eligible for trading in the electronic book.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange recently implemented a fully-automated electronic book
for the display and execution of orders in securities that are not
assigned to a specialist.\6\ These new rules replace the Exchange's
manual cabinet and lead market maker trading procedures with a new
fully automated electronic book that displays and matches eligible
limit orders in eligible securities, without the participation of a
specialist or lead market maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52094 (July 21,
2005), 70 FR 43913 (July 29, 2005). The Exchange has rolled out this
technology for the trading of Nasdaq/NM securities and anticipates
implementing its use for the trading of listed securities within the
next two weeks. Telephone call between Ellen Neely, President, CHX
and Sara Gillis, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission
on October 27, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The electronic book was originally designed to accept only round
lot orders. The Exchange now believes that it would be appropriate to
allow CHX participants to submit mixed lot cross and cross with size
orders for immediate execution in the electronic book. ``Cross'' and
``cross with size'' orders permit the handling of orders to buy and
sell the same security--within the electronic book, these orders are
automatically executed if they meet the requirements for these types of
orders, but are immediately cancelled if they do not meet applicable
requirements.\7\ The Exchange believes that some of its participants
would welcome the opportunity to submit mixed lot cross and cross with
size orders to the electronic book. The Exchange believes that this
relatively minor change to Exchange systems will permit its
participants to execute additional transactions in this automated
trading facility, but will not have any impact on the protection of
investors or the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ A ``cross'' order is an order to buy and sell the same
security at a specific price that is better than the best bid and
offer displayed in the electronic book and, for listed securities,
equal to or better than the NBBO. A ``cross with size'' order is an
order to buy and sell at least 25,000 shares of the same security
(a) at a price equal to or better than the best bid or offer
displayed in the electronic book and, for listed securities, equal
to or better than the NBBO; (b) where the size of the order is
larger than the aggregate size of all interest displayed in the
electronic book at that price; and (c) where neither side of the
order is for the account of the CHX participant sending the order to
the electronic book. See CHX Rules, Article XXA, Rule 2(c) (3) and
(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the
requirements of section 6(b).\8\ The CHX believes the proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (i) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not
impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become
operative for 30 days (or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest) after the date of the filing, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act,\12\ the
Exchange provided with the Commission with written notice of its intent
to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and
text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to
the date of the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\13\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter
time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest. The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay and allow the proposed rule change to become
operative immediately. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest. Waiver of the 30-day operative delay will allow
Exchange participants to make immediate use of the electronic book
functionality for their mixed lot cross and cross with size orders,
which may permit Exchange participants to access potentially larger
pools of liquidity located in the electronic book. For the reasons
stated above, the Commission finds good cause to designate that the
proposal is operative immediately.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-CHX-2005-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

    All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2005-26. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without
change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information
from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to
make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-
CHX-2005-26 and should be submitted on or before November 30, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22334 Filed 11-8-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 139 (Wednesday, July 20, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47144-47150]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17054]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0599; FRL-9949-28-Region 5]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio;
Redesignation of the Ohio Portion of the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH Sulfur
Dioxide Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to redesignate the Ohio portion of
the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH sulfur dioxide (SO2)
nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment. The Ohio portion
of this area consists of Pierce Township in Clermont County, Ohio. EPA
is also proposing to approve Ohio's maintenance plan submitted on
August 11, 2015. The primary emission source in the area has
permanently closed, and the air quality in the area is now meeting the
SO2 standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0599 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Redesignation Requirements
III. Determination of Attainment
IV. Ohio's Section 110(k) SIP
V. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions
VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section 110 and Part D
VII. Maintenance Plan
VIII. What action is EPA taking?
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010), EPA established a
revised primary SO2 national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at a monitoring
site when the three-year average of the 99th percentile of daily
maximum one-hour concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb. On August 5,
2013 (78 FR 47191), EPA published its initial air quality designations
for the SO2 NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data for
calendar years 2009-2011. In that action, the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH
area was designated nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS. The
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area is comprised of Pierce
Township in Clermont County, Ohio, and five census tracts in Campbell
County, Kentucky. The Ohio portion of the nonattainment area contains
the Walter C. Beckjord power plant (Beckjord plant). The Kentucky
portion of the nonattainment area has less than nine tons of total
SO2 emissions per year, but it contains the SO2
monitor which had violated the SO2 standard as of 2011.
    By April 4, 2015, Ohio and Kentucky were required to submit
nonattainment plan SIPs that meet the requirements of sections 172(c)
and 191-192 of the CAA, and provide for attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018. Ohio's
analysis found the Beckjord plant to be the main contributor to
SO2 monitored levels in the nonattainment area. In 2011, the
Beckjord plant had reported 90,835 tons of SO2 emissions.
However, in late 2014, the Beckjord plant permanently ceased
operations. Its coal-fired electricity generating units were shut down
as of September 2014, and its oil-fired units ceased operations by the
end of 2014. Sulfur dioxide emissions at the Beckjord plant totaled
32,603 tons in 2014, and zero tons in 2015. Currently, the total point,
area, and mobile source SO2 emissions in the entire
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area are approximately 17 tons
per year (tpy). Because of the significant, permanent and enforceable
reduction in SO2 emissions affecting the nonattainment area,
and because the Campbell County SO2 monitor's three-year
SO2 design value \1\ for 2012-2014 had fallen below the
SO2 NAAQS, Ohio chose to submit a redesignation request in
2015, in lieu of a nonattainment SIP. On August 11, 2015, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) submitted its request to EPA
to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH
nonattainment area to attainment. For the reasons set forth in this
document, EPA is proposing to redesignate the area to attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The design value is a statistic computed according to the
data handling procedures of the NAAQS (in 40 CFR part 50 appendix T)
that, by comparison to the level of the NAAQS, indicates whether the
area is violating the NAAQS. For SO2, the design value is
the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour
daily maximum concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Redesignation Requirements

    Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), there are five criteria which must
be met before a nonattainment area may be redesignated to attainment.
    1. EPA has determined that the relevant NAAQS has been attained in
the area.

    2. The applicable implementation plan has been fully approved by
EPA under section 110(k).
    3. EPA has determined that improvement in air quality is due to
permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from the
SIP, Federal regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
reductions.
    4. EPA has fully approved a maintenance plan, including a
contingency plan, for the area under section 175A of the CAA.
    5. The State has met all applicable requirements for the area under
section 110 and part D.

III. Determination of Attainment

    The first requirement for redesignation is to demonstrate that the
standard has been attained in the area. As stated in the April 2014
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions,'' for SO2, there are two components needed to
support an attainment determination: A review of representative air
quality monitoring data, and a further analysis, generally requiring
air quality modeling, to demonstrate that the entire area is attaining
the applicable standard, based on current actual emissions or the fully
implemented control strategy. Ohio has addressed both components.
    Under EPA regulations at 40 CFR 50.17, the SO2 standard
is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year
average of the annual 99th percentile of one-hour daily maximum
concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in
accordance with appendix T of 40 CFR part 50 at all relevant monitoring
sites in the subject area. EPA has reviewed the ambient air monitoring
data for the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area. The Campbell-
Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area has one SO2 monitoring
site, located in northern Campbell County, Kentucky. The Campbell
County SO2 monitor is operated by the Kentucky Division for
Air Quality. This review addresses air quality data collected in the
2012-2014 and 2013-2015 periods, which are the most recent quality-
assured data available. All data considered are complete, quality-
assured, certified, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System database.
    Table 1 shows the 2012-2014 and 2013-2015 design values for the
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area. For 2014, the last year in
which the Beckjord plant was operating, the 99th percentile monitored
daily maximum value was 61 ppb. For 2015, after the Beckjord plant had
shut down, the 99th percentile monitored daily maximum value was 18
ppb. The three-year average design value for 2012-2014 is 72 ppb, and
the three-year average design value for 2013-2015 is 50 ppb. Both are
below the SO2 standard. Therefore, the Campbell County
SO2 monitor clearly shows attainment. Kentucky has committed
to continue monitoring for SO2 at this location. Preliminary
data for 2016 indicate that the area is continuing to attain the
SO2 standard.

                         Table 1--Monitoring Data for the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH Nonattainment Area for 2012-2014 and 2013-2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Year and 99th percentile value (ppb)         Average     Average
                     Site                                    County              ------------------------------------------------  2012-2014   2013-2015
                                                                                2012        2013        2014        2015        (ppb)       (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21-037-3002...................................  Campbell, KY....................         85          71          61          18          72          50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the second component of the attainment determination,
Ohio examined the extent to which the earlier NAAQS violations and
subsequent improvement in the local monitored SO2 values
were primarily attributable to the Beckjord plant. Ohio used three
methods to judge the prospects of future violations following the
shutdown of the Beckjord plant. In these methods, Ohio evaluated local
emission inventories, wind patterns during monitored exceedances, and
monitored data during periods when the Beckjord plant was still active
but not emitting SO2. EPA proposes to find that these
analyses meet the April 2014 guidance requirement to comprehensively
evaluate the impacts of the Beckjord plant's closure on the Campbell-
Clermont area and demonstrate that the entire area is attaining the
SO2 standard.
    As a first step in this approach, Ohio reviewed the inventory of
SO2 sources in the area. This inventory shows no large
SO2 sources in the Kentucky portion of the nonattainment
area. There are several SO2 sources in the Cincinnati area,
in Hamilton County, Ohio. The largest of these is Dynegy's Miami Fort
Power Station (Miami Fort plant), which emitted over 28,000 tons of
SO2 in 2014. The Miami Fort plant is located 30 kilometers
(km) west of the Campbell County SO2 monitor. As of June
2015, the Miami Fort plant reduced its emissions by approximately 50%
from 2014 levels with the closure of its Unit 6. The next largest
source, at 1,600 tons of SO2, is the DTE St. Bernard
facility, which is located 17 km north of the Campbell County
SO2 monitor. The other SO2 sources in Hamilton
County emitted less than 200 tons of SO2 in 2014, and are
located 16-31 km from the Campbell County SO2 monitor. In
Clermont County, outside the nonattainment area, the only other
SO2 source is the W.H. Zimmer power plant (Zimmer plant),
located approximately 15 km south of the Beckjord plant and 27 km
southwest of the SO2 Campbell County SO2 monitor.
The Zimmer plant emitted 13,500 tons of SO2 in 2014.
    The second part of this review was to more closely examine
potential contributors to SO2 NAAQS exceedances in the
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area. For this purpose, Ohio
analyzed wind patterns and back-trajectories for the 44 hours \2\ for
which SO2 levels were greater than 75 ppb at the Campbell
County SO2 monitor between 2010 and 2014. The hourly
monitored SO2 values ranged from 76 ppb to 180 ppb. The 24-
hour back trajectories seek to determine the origins of air flow
leading toward the monitor location. Hourly wind data were also used to
help focus on the short term flow close to the times of exceedances.
Ohio found that the trajectories indicated that high concentrations at
the Campbell County SO2 monitor were most often

attributable to wind flows from the vicinity of the Beckjord plant.
Winds (measured at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky airport) were
almost exclusively from the east during the 44 hours with high
monitored concentrations. Trajectories passed over or near the Beckjord
plant in about two thirds of the 44 hours. The Beckjord plant appeared
to be the main contributor to 42 of the hours. One hour appeared to
have some influence from the Zimmer plant as well as from the Beckjord
plant, and for another hour, Ohio could not identify any SO2
source located in the area indicated by the back-trajectory and surface
winds. None of the exceedances appeared to be attributable to the Miami
Fort plant or other sources west of the Campbell County SO2
monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Although it is possible for a SO2 monitor to
measure SO2 values above the NAAQS for several individual
hours during a given day, only the single highest monitored hourly
SO2 value in each 24-hour day is formally defined as ``an
exceedance of the SO2 NAAQS,'' if it is greater than 75
ppb. There were 26 exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS at the
Campbell County SO2 monitor during 2012-2014, but there
were 44 total hours for which the SO2 monitor recorded
SO2 values above the SO2 NAAQS of 75 ppb. A
violation of the SO2 NAAQS, as opposed to an exceedance,
is recorded when the three-year average of the annual 99th
percentile of one-hour daily maximum concentrations exceeds 75 ppb.
In this analysis, to identify contributing SO2 sources,
Ohio evaluated the 44 hours in 2012-2014 for which the
SO2 monitor had registered a SO2 concentration
over 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The third analysis considered monitored SO2 values and
wind directions during the time period of January 1, 2012, through
February 28, 2015. During that period, there were a total of 10,231
hours when the Beckjord plant's SO2 emissions were zero. The
Beckjord plant was not operating at all in 2015 or during the last four
months of 2014, and there were 1400-2500 hours in which the Beckjord
plant did not emit SO2 during 2012 and 2013 as well. Ohio
examined the Campbell County monitored data and found that no
exceedances of the SO2 NAAQS were measured during these
10,231 hours. The maximum monitored concentration at the Campbell
County SO2 monitor during these hours was 34 ppb. The
highest monitored values measured while the Beckjord plant was emitting
SO2 were typically associated with winds coming from the
east and southeast, suggesting the Beckjord plant's influence. The
winds associated with the highest monitored values during the 10,231
hours without impacts from the Beckjord plant, however, came from the
west and southwest. As those monitored values were less than half of
the SO2 NAAQS in magnitude, Ohio's analysis supports the
assertion that the closing of the Beckjord plant has led to attainment
of the SO2 NAAQS, and suggests that future violations caused
by other nearby sources are unlikely.
    Ohio did not further evaluate the sources to the north and west of
the nonattainment area due to their distance from the area and their
emission levels, and because the previously discussed analyses did not
indicate that sources north and west of the nonattainment area have had
a significant influence on monitored exceedances. Ohio did, however,
specifically evaluate the Zimmer plant for its potential contribution
to elevated SO2 levels in the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH
nonattainment area. The Zimmer plant's impacts warranted additional
analysis because it has substantial emissions, is located relatively
near the Beckjord plant, and generally has the greatest potential
(after the shutdown of the Beckjord plant) to cause violations in the
nonattainment area.
    First, the State considered a graphical analysis of the 2012-2014
hourly SO2 levels at the Campbell County SO2
monitor compared to the hourly SO2 emissions from the
Beckjord and Zimmer plants. The Zimmer plant's emissions stayed
relatively constant over the time period, while the Beckjord plant's
emissions, which were much larger than the Zimmer plant's, also varied
more widely. The data showed that the monitored SO2 levels
seemed to fluctuate in a pattern similar to the Beckjord plant's
emission variations, falling to its lowest levels when the Beckjord
plant's emissions were very low, even as the Zimmer plant's emissions
remained relatively steady, which suggests that the Campbell County
SO2 monitor was more strongly influenced by the Beckjord
plant's impacts. Based on these results, particularly from the
trajectory analyses, Ohio's first approach yields a finding that the
violations previously recorded at the SO2 monitor were
primarily attributable to emissions from the Beckjord plant, which in
turn indicates that the shutdown of the Beckjord plant can be expected
to result in no further violations at this monitoring site.
    Ohio's second approach to assessing prospects of future violations
in the nonattainment area was to perform a modeling analysis to
evaluate the location of the Zimmer plant's maximum impacts and to
estimate a worst-case impact within the nonattainment area. This
analysis was intended to address the potential for violations not just
at the monitoring site (28 km from the Zimmer plant) but also elsewhere
in the nonattainment area. The Zimmer plant is approximately 11.5 km
from the nearest edge of the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH SO2
nonattainment area. Ohio's analysis covered only the time period with
available meteorological data after the Beckjord plant's coal units
shut down: August 30, 2014, to February 28, 2015. Because this data set
is shorter than the five-year period typically used to demonstrate
attainment of the SO2 standard, Ohio used the second high
modeled maximum daily value to represent the 99th percentile, rather
than the fourth high modeled maximum daily value. Ohio used a coarse
receptor grid within the nonattainment area, and a finer grid within
three kilometers of the Zimmer plant. Maximum impacts were found to
occur within one kilometer of the Zimmer plant. In this analysis, Ohio
modeled a unit emission rate of one gram per second from the Zimmer
plant's two stacks, to find the relative impacts from the Zimmer plant
at the monitoring location and at a range of other receptors inside the
nonattainment area as well as closer to the plant. Ohio then used the
second high value measured at the Campbell County monitor during this
time period with zero impacts from The Beckjord plant, under the
conservative assumption that this monitored value was entirely caused
by the Zimmer plant's emissions, to develop a numerical estimate of the
relative worst-case impact of the Zimmer plant elsewhere within the
nonattainment area. The second high monitored value was 24 ppb, and
Ohio determined that the Zimmer plant's highest impact within the
nonattainment area relative to that monitored value would be
approximately 52 ppb. Impacts at this level would not cause exceedances
of the SO2 NAAQS within the nonattainment area.
    As a third approach, Ohio and Kentucky estimated future
SO2 concentrations in the nonattainment area using a method
similar to developing a conservative background concentration for a
typical modeled attainment demonstration. Ohio used Campbell County
SO2 monitor data from 2010-2014 for this calculation. Since
the Beckjord plant was operating during this period, Ohio followed EPA
guidance to ensure that the monitored values for background did not
count impacts from the Beckjord plant or the Zimmer plant. Ohio
determined the 90 degree wind direction sector for which the Campbell
County SO2 monitor could be impacted by direct emissions
from either power plant, and excluded monitored hours when winds came
from this sector. Ohio averaged the remaining monitored values in each
year, excluding values of zero for additional conservatism, and chose
the highest value, 4.4 ppb. Ohio further refined the analysis to
exclude only the 45 degree sector centered on the Beckjord plant. The
highest average value in this case, which could include the Zimmer
plant's impacts, was 4.76 ppb. Since no significant sources exist now
that would be expected to cause significant concentration gradients
within the nonattainment area, conceptually a modeling analysis for
this area would reflect modeling zero

emissions, and the final ``modeled'' result would be equal to the
background concentration. Since the background value could also
conservatively include actual 2010-2014 contributions from Cincinnati-
area sources which have reduced their SO2 emissions since
2014, this analysis supports Ohio's assertion that the Campbell-
Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area will continue to attain the
SO2 NAAQS.
    In addition to these analyses, all of which were provided in Ohio's
redesignation request, Ohio has also provided relevant information in
the separate context of addressing the prospective SO2
designation for the more immediate vicinity of the Zimmer plant. Ohio's
September 16, 2015, submittal provided a full modeling analysis in
accordance with EPA's modeling Technical Assistance Document (TAD)
which indicated that the maximum concentration estimated near the
Zimmer plant was 56 ppb, at a distance just over one kilometer from the
plant's stacks. Based largely on this information, EPA wrote to Ohio on
February 16, 2016, stating EPA's preliminary intention to promulgate an
unclassifiable/attainment designation for all of Clermont County that
is not already designated, i.e. for all of Clermont County except the
portion (Pierce Township) that is included in the Campbell-Clermont KY-
OH nonattainment area. Since the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment
area is substantially more distant than the peak impacts of the Zimmer
plant, and the impacts of the Zimmer plant in the area would therefore
be much lower than 56 ppb, this modeling provides clear evidence that
the Zimmer plant is not causing violations anywhere in the Campbell-
Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area. In summary, the monitored data show
attainment for 2012-2014 and for 2013-2015; Ohio has demonstrated that
the closed Beckjord plant was likely to have caused the previous
violations of the SO2 NAAQS; and Ohio has demonstrated that
neither the Zimmer plant nor other SO2 emissions are
expected to cause future violations in the area. Therefore, EPA agrees
that the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area is currently
attaining the SO2 NAAQS.

IV. Ohio's Section 110(k) SIP

    EPA has determined that Ohio has a fully approved SIP under section
110(k). Ohio has implemented its SO2 SIP regulations at Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-18, and Ohio maintains an active
enforcement program to ensure ongoing compliance. Ohio's new source
review/prevention of significant deterioration program will address
emissions from new sources. Ohio's current SO2 SIP rule for
Clermont County is codified at OAC 3745-18-19. The existing rule
addressing the Beckjord plant's SO2 emissions, OAC 3745-18-
19(B), remains in the SIP, but Ohio has submitted documents which
demonstrate that the facility has closed and is no longer authorized
under the State's permitting program to operate.

V. Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions

    As previously stated, the Beckjord plant closed in late 2014, and
the monitored improvement in air quality is largely due to this
closure. The closure results in a reduction of 90,835 tpy, considering
the plant's 2011 emissions, representing the time the area was
classified nonattainment; or a reduction of 32,603 tpy, considering the
plant's emissions in 2014, when the area first began to monitor
attainment. Upon notification of the Beckjord plant's closure, in
accordance with Ohio EPA policy, Ohio ceased its authorization for the
facility to operate unless it obtains a new permit. Ohio EPA provided
documentation of this shutdown in the form of an October 14, 2014,
letter from Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., to the Southwest Ohio Air Quality
Agency. In this letter, Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. confirmed that the
Beckjord plant's six large coal-fired units are permanently shut down
and removed from service as of October 1, 2014. The letter confirmed
that Ohio's authorization for Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. to operate the six
units had ceased. The Beckjord plant has been demonstrated to be the
primary SO2 source which caused the monitored exceedances.
As it has closed and cannot reopen without applying for a new operating
permit, EPA agrees that the improvement in air quality in the
nonattainment area is due to permanent and enforceable emission
reductions.

VI. Requirements for the Area Under Section 110 and Part D

    Ohio has submitted information demonstrating that it meets these
requirements. EPA approved Ohio's infrastructure SIP for SO2
on August 14, 2015 (80 FR 48733). This infrastructure SIP approval
confirms that Ohio's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) to contain the basic program elements, such as
an active enforcement program and permitting program.
    Section 191 of the CAA requires Ohio to submit a part D
nonattainment SIP for the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area by
April 4, 2015. Because Ohio submitted its August 11, 2015,
redesignation request instead of a nonattainment SIP, EPA was compelled
to include this area in our March 18, 2016, finding of failure to
submit (81 FR 14736). However, final promulgation of this redesignation
to attainment would end any nonattainment plan requirements, and
promulgation of this redesignation within 18 months of the finding of
failure to submit would result in no sanctions taking effect.
    With the redesignation request of August 11, 2015, Ohio submitted
information addressing the section 172 part D SIP requirements. Ohio
submitted an attainment inventory of the SO2 emissions from
sources in the nonattainment area. Ohio chose 2011 for its base year
emissions inventory, as comprehensive emissions data was available and
updated that year, which satisfies the 172(c)(3) requirements. The
Kentucky portion of the nonattainment area contained 11 minor point
source facilities. Their combined SO2 emissions were less
than one ton per year. The only significant source in the Ohio portion
of the nonattainment area is the Beckjord plant. Area and non-highway
mobile source emissions were taken from the 2011 National Emissions
Inventory (NEI), with county-wide values adjusted based on the
population percentages in the nonattainment area. Highway mobile source
emissions were provided by the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council
of Governments (OKI), based on dividing the vehicle miles traveled in
the nonattainment area by the vehicle miles traveled in the entire
county. Census data and projections were used to develop growth factors
for future years. The attainment year inventory was based on 2014
emissions, adjusted for projected growth in the area, and accounting
for the Beckjord plant's closure.
    Table 2 shows the projected inventories. Note that Kentucky's
inventory remains steady at approximately 8 tpy total, while Ohio's
projected inventory, accounting for the Beckjord plant's actual
closure, drops from over 90,000 tpy in 2011 to approximately 8 tpy in
the interim and maintenance years. This large reduction is expected to
be sufficient to maintain the SO2 standard.

                   Table 2--Campbell-Clermont Nonattainment Area SO2 Emission Inventory Totals
                                                      [tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2011 base-year    2014 attainment      2020 interim     2027 maintenance
                                          emissions             year               year               year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio................................          90,842.51          32,610.56               8.36               8.46
Kentucky............................               8.56               8.54               8.47               8.27
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    Combined total..................          90,851.07          32,619.10              16.83              16.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment area SIPs to provide for
the implementation of all reasonably available control measures (RACM)
as expeditiously as practicable and to provide for attainment of the
NAAQS. EPA's longstanding interpretation of the nonattainment planning
requirements of section 172 is that once an area is attaining the
NAAQS, those requirements are not applicable for purposes of CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) and therefore need not be approved into the
SIP before EPA can redesignate the area. In the 1992 General Preamble
for Implementation of Title I, EPA set forth its interpretation of
applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating redesignation
requests when an area is attaining a standard. See 57 FR 13498, 13564
(April 16, 1992). EPA noted that the requirements for reasonable
further progress (RFP) and other measures designed to provide for
attainment do not apply in evaluating redesignation requests because
those nonattainment planning requirements ``have no meaning'' for an
area that has already attained the standard. EPA's understanding of
section 172 also forms the basis of its Clean Data Policy, which was
articulated with regard to SO2 in the April 2014 ``Guidance
for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP Submissions,'' and
suspends a State's obligation to submit most of the attainment planning
requirements that would otherwise apply, including an attainment
demonstration and planning SIPs to provide for RFP, RACM, and
contingency measures under section 172(c)(9). Courts have upheld EPA's
interpretation of section 172(c)(1) for ``reasonably available''
control measures and control technology as meaning only those controls
that advance attainment, which precludes the need to require additional
measures where an area is already attaining. NRDC v. EPA, 571 F.3d
1245, 1252 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162
(D.C. Cir. 2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 744 (5th Cir.
2002); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2004).\3\ Therefore,
because the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area has attained the
SO2 standard, no additional measures are needed to provide
for attainment, and section 172(c)(1) requirements for an attainment
demonstration and RACM are not part of the ``applicable implementation
plan'' required to have been approved prior to redesignation per CAA
section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In any case, in the absence of major point
sources, and in the context of implemented measures (especially the
shutdown of the Beckjord plant) having achieved attainment, EPA
believes that Ohio has satisfied the reasonably available control
measures/reasonably available control techniques (RACM/RACT)
requirement for this area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has
issued a contrary opinion in the context of redesignations for ozone
and PM2.5, EPA believes that these opinions, interpreting
the applicability of the ozone and PM2.5 RACM/RACT
requirements for redesignations for those pollutants, do not address
the applicability of the RACM/RACT requirement for SO2.
See Sierra Club v. EPA, 793 F.3d 656 (6th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The other section 172 requirements that are designed to help an
area achieve attainment are the section 172(c)(2) requirement that
nonattainment plans contain provisions promoting reasonable further
progress, the requirement to submit the section 172(c)(9) contingency
measures, and the section 172(c)(6) requirement for the SIP to contain
control measures necessary to provide for attainment of the NAAQS.
These are also not required to be approved as part of the ``applicable
implementation plan'' for purposes of satisfying CAA section
107(d)(3)(E)(ii).
    Section 172(c)(4) requires the identification and quantification of
allowable emissions for major new and modified stationary sources to be
allowed in an area, and section 172(c)(5) requires source permits for
the construction and operation of new and modified major stationary
sources anywhere in the nonattainment area. EPA has determined that,
since PSD requirements will apply after redesignation, areas being
redesignated need not comply with the requirement that a NSR program be
approved prior to redesignation, provided that the area demonstrates
maintenance of the NAAQS without part D NSR. A more detailed rationale
for this view is described in a memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant
Administrator for Air and Radiation, dated October 14, 1994, entitled
``Part D New Source Review Requirements for Areas Requesting
Redesignation to Attainment.'' Ohio has demonstrated that the Campbell-
Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area will be able to maintain the NAAQS
without part D NSR in effect, and therefore Ohio does not need to have
a fully approved part D NSR program prior to approval of the
redesignation request. Ohio's PSD program will become effective in the
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area upon redesignation to
attainment.
    Section 172(c)(7) requires the SIP to meet the applicable
provisions of section 110(a)(2). As noted above, EPA believes that the
Ohio SIP meets the requirements of section 110(a)(2) applicable for
purposes of redesignation.
    Section 176(c) of the CAA requires States to establish criteria and
procedures to ensure that federally supported or funded projects
conform to the air quality planning goals in the applicable SIP. The
requirement to determine conformity applies to transportation plans,
programs, and projects that are developed, funded, or approved under
title 23 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and the Federal Transit Act
(transportation conformity) as well as to all other federally supported
or funded projects (general conformity). State transportation
conformity SIP revisions must be consistent with Federal conformity
regulations relating to consultation, enforcement, and enforceability
that EPA promulgated pursuant to its authority under the CAA. On August
20, 2014, Ohio submitted documentation establishing transportation
conformity procedures in its SIP. EPA approved these procedures on
March 2, 2015 (80 FR 11133). Moreover, EPA interprets the

conformity SIP requirements as not applying for purposes of evaluating
a redesignation request under section 107(d) because, like other
requirements listed above, State conformity rules are still required
after redesignation and Federal conformity rules apply where State
rules have not been approved. See Wall v. EPA, 265 F.3d 426 (6th Cir.
2001) (upholding this interpretation); see also 60 FR 62748 (December
7, 1995) (redesignation of Tampa, Florida).
    As discussed above, EPA is proposing to find that Ohio has
satisfied all applicable requirements for purposes of redesignation of
the Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area under section 110 and
part D of title I of the CAA.

VII. Maintenance Plan

    CAA section 175A sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for
areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. Under
section 175A, the plan must demonstrate continued attainment of the
applicable NAAQS for at least ten years after the nonattainment area is
redesignated to attainment. Eight years after the redesignation, the
State must submit a revised maintenance plan demonstrating that
attainment will continue to be maintained for the ten years following
the initial ten-year period. To address the possibility of future NAAQS
violations, the maintenance plan must contain contingency measures as
EPA deems necessary to assure prompt correction of any future one-hour
SO2 violations. Specifically, the maintenance plan should
address five requirements: The attainment emissions inventory,
maintenance demonstration, monitoring, verification of continued
attainment, and a contingency plan.
    Ohio's August 11, 2015, redesignation request contains its
maintenance plan, which Ohio has committed to review eight years after
redesignation. Ohio submitted an attainment emission inventory which
addresses current emissions and projections of future emissions, for
point, area, and mobile sources. Total SO2 emissions in the
nonattainment area were 90,851 tpy in the base year, 2011; 32,619 tpy
in the attainment year, 2014; and 16.7 tpy in the projected future
years between 2017 and 2027 (see Table 2). Ohio has demonstrated that
after the closure of the Beckjord plant, the area is attaining and is
expected to maintain the SO2 NAAQS. Kentucky has committed
to continue monitoring at the Campbell County site in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 58. These data will be used to verify
continued attainment. Ohio has the authority to adopt, implement and
enforce any subsequent emissions control measures deemed necessary to
correct any future SO2 violations. Regarding contingency
measures to implement in the case of a future violation of the
SO2 standard, Ohio did not name a specific control measure,
as there are no sources in or near the nonattainment area with the
potential to cause a violation. As a contingency plan, therefore, Ohio
has committed to identify any sources which cause or contribute to
monitored violations, and follow up with enforcement proceedings,
expediting any necessary corrective actions. SIP rules will be revised
in accordance with Ohio's rulemaking procedures if new control measures
are needed. Ohio commits to study SO2 emission trends and
identify areas of concern if the annual average 99th percentile maximum
daily one-hour SO2 concentration of 79 ppb or greater occurs
in a single year, or if a two-year average of 76 ppb or greater occurs
in the maintenance area. Ohio will adopt and implement corrective
actions as necessary to address such trends of increasing emissions or
ambient impacts. The public will have the opportunity to participate in
the contingency measure implementation process. EPA proposes to find
that Ohio's maintenance plan adequately addresses the five basic
components necessary to maintain the SO2 standard in the
Campbell-Clermont KY-OH nonattainment area.

VIII. What action is EPA taking?

    In accordance with Ohio's August 11, 2015, request, EPA is
proposing to redesignate the Ohio portion of the Campbell-Clermont KY-
OH nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS. Ohio has demonstrated that the area is attaining
the SO2 standard, and that the improvement in air quality is
due to the permanent and enforceable shutdown of the main
SO2 source in the nonattainment area. EPA is proposing to
approve the maintenance plan that Ohio submitted to ensure that the
area will continue to maintain the SO2 standard.

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: July 11, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2016-17054 Filed 7-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


TABLE 7  Burden and Cost of Source Activities For the Permanent Federal Program Activity Hours Hourly # of Total Average Total Average Rate Affected 3 Year Burden Cost Cost From Permits Burden ( Hours) ($ 1999) ($ 1999) Old ICR ( Hours)

Permit Application 300 / permit 0 Gap Filling Monitoring Dev. 40 / permit 0 Public Hearing Participation 10 / permit 0 Renewal Permit Application 300 / permit $ 111 50 15,000 5,000 $ 1,665,000 $ 555,000 Operate Gap Filling Monitoring 200 / permit Year 1 $ 32 35 7,000 2,333 $ 224,000 $ 74,667 Year 2 35 7,000 2,333 $ 224,000 $ 74,667 Year 3 35 7,000 2,333 $ 224,000 $ 74,667 Total 21,000 7,000 $ 672,000 $ 224,000 Prepare Monitoring Reports 80 / permit Year 1 $ 32 105 8,400 2,800 $ 268,800 $ 89,600 Year 2 105 8,400 2,800 $ 268,800 $ 89,600 Year 3 105 8,400 2,800 $ 268,800 $ 89,600 Total 25,200 8,400 $ 806,400 $ 268,800 Permit Revisions Significant Permit Mods 80 / permit Year 1 $ 32 10 800 267 $ 25,600 $ 8,533 Year 2 10 800 267 $ 25,600 $ 8,533 Year 3 10 800 267 $ 25,600 $ 8,533 Total 2,400 800 $ 76,800 $ 25,600 Minor Permit Mods 40 / permit Year 1 $ 32 53 2,120 707 $ 67,840 $ 22,613 Year 2 53 2,120 707 $ 67,840 $ 22,613 Year 3 53 2,120 707 $ 67,840 $ 22,613 Total 6,360 2,120 $ 203,520 $ 67,840 Admin Amendments 8 / permit Year 1 $ 32 53 424 141 $ 13,568 $ 4,523 Year 2 53 424 141 $ 13,568 $ 4,523 Year 3 53 424 141 $ 13,568 $ 4,523 Total 1,272 424 $ 40,704 $ 13,568 Revision Subtotal 10,032 3,344 321,024 $ 99,328 Other Activities 20 / permit $ 32 53 1,060 353 $ 33,920 $ 11,307 TOTALS 72,292 24,097 $ 3,498,344 $ 1,158,435 95 Indian Country permits + 10 Outer Continental Shelf sources


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14640-14641]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07115]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0795; FRL-9992-13-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Negative Declaration for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry
Control Techniques Guidelines

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Delaware. This revision pertains to a negative declaration for
the October 2016 Oil and Natural Gas Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) (2016 Oil and Gas CTG). This action is being taken under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0795 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin Trouba,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The revision consists of the State of Delaware's negative
declaration for the October 2016 Oil and Natural Gas CTG. On October
27, 2016, EPA published in the Federal Register the ``Release of Final
Control Techniques Guidelines for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.''
81 FR 74798. The CTG provided information to state, local, and tribal
air agencies to assist them in determining reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from
select oil and natural gas industry emission sources. Section
182(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that for ozone nonattainment areas

classified as Moderate, states must revise their SIPs to include
provisions to implement RACT for each category of VOC sources covered
by a CTG document issued between November 15, 1990, and the date of
attainment. Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA extends this requirement to
states in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). States with no applicable
sources for a specific CTG may submit as a SIP revision a negative
declaration stating that there are no applicable sources in the state.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On June 28, 2018, Delaware's Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) submitted to EPA a SIP revision
concerning a negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG. In its
submittal, DNREC stated that the State has no sources applicable to
this CTG. This conclusion is based in part on Delaware's investigation
of three companies identified through an EPA information collection
request (ICR) letter, as facilities in Delaware where the 2016 Oil and
Gas CTG was potentially applicable. DNREC investigated the status of
the three facilities. The results of the investigation are detailed in
Delaware's submittal which demonstrates that the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG
is not applicable to the three facilities in question. Delaware stated
that it also reviewed State air permits, emissions inventory files, and
business listings and found no applicable facilities in the State.
DNREC asserts that there are no facilities in the State that are
currently involved in oil and gas production and processing activities
covered by the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Delaware SIP revision concerning
the negative declaration for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, which was
submitted on June 28, 2018. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, Delaware's negative declaration
for the 2016 Oil and Gas CTG, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 1, 2019.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-07115 Filed 4-10-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 66288]
[DOCID:fr07no08-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief From the
Requirements of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 236

    Pursuant to Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system or relief from the requirements of
49 CFR Part 236 as detailed below.

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0108]

Applicant: Port of San Francisco, Ms. Evelyn Onderdonk, P.E., Resident
Engineer, Pier 1, The Embarcadero, San Francisco, California 94111.

    The Port of San Francisco seeks relief from the requirements of the
Rules, Standards, and Instructions, Title 49 CFR Part 236, Sec. Sec.
236.312, Movable bridge, interlocking of signal appliances with bridge;
236.303, Control circuits for signals, selected through circuit
controller operated by switch points or by switch locking mechanism;
and 236.55, Dead section; maximum length, on the Illinois Street Bridge
Project. The Port is the owner of the bridge and the railroad. The
location of the bridge is in San Francisco on Illinois Street between
Cargo Way and Marin Street.
    Applicant's justification for relief: As to Sec.  236.312, the
Illinois Street Bridge is a non-counterweighted single leaf trunnion
type bascule span rotated by hydraulic cylinders. The leaf weighs 475
kips. The bridge is opened by brute force. As such, there is no need
for a mechanical locking device to hold the bridge down. Horizontal
alignment of the rail is provided by the trunnion at the heel end and
by friction on the toe end bearings. In addition, a toe end centering
device, or lug, is provided to ensure bridge horizontal alignment in
overload conditions such as moderate earthquakes and ship impacts.
    As to Sec.  236.303, trains are operating at 10 mph, regardless of
the switch points' position the train engineer, per the railroad's
operating procedures, will get off the engine, inspect the switch
points and align if required to ensure that they are in the correct
position and that no obstructions are present, push the appropriate
push button, wait until a proceed signal is received, board the engine,
and proceed.
    As to Sec.  236.55, there is a 70-foot dead section on the bridge.
A trap circuit ensures that the bridge cannot be raised while the
bridge is occupied by a train and functions as follows: ``When a train
leaves the last track circuit before the dead section and enters the
dead section, the track circuit on the other side of the dead section
must become occupied and then unoccupied before the bridge can be
raised.'' Under this system, there is a possibility that a rail car
could be left within the dead section and not be detected. To protect
against this possibility, operation of the bridge must occur from the
roof of the bridge control house where conditions on the bridge can be
observed. The bridge cannot be raised remotely. The train engineer
shall use line of sight to ensure that the bridge is unobstructed
before proceeding across the bridge.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    Any interested party desiring to protest the granting of an
application shall set forth specifically the grounds upon which the
protest is made, and it shall contain a concise statement of the
interest of the party in the proceeding. Additionally, one copy of the
protest shall be furnished to the applicant at the address listed
above.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should be
identified by Docket Number FRA-2008-0108 and may be submitted by any
of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-26619 Filed 11-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72018-72019]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29872]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65745; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-149]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange Rule 795,
Member Officer or Director

November 14, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on November 3, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to eliminate Exchange Rule 795 entitled
``Member Officer or Director.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to eliminate Exchange
Rule 795 entitled ``Member Officer or Director.'' The Exchange does not
believes it is necessary for a member, who is an officer or director of
a corporation engaged in a securities business or a member who owns or
controls, directly or indirectly, a corporation engaged in a securities
business, to obtain the written permission of the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that this Rule is unnecessary and is not pertinent to
the Exchange's business or regulatory obligations. In addition, the
Exchange is able to ascertain other business relationships of an
officer or director from disclosures made by members on a Uniform
Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (``Form
U4'').
    Exchange Rule 795 was adopted prior to demutualization \3\ at a
time in the Exchange's history when it operated as a member-owned
organization. The Exchange believes that there may have been an
interest at that time to be notified of and for the Exchange to approve
a member's role in another entity. The Exchange has not utilized this
Rule in a long time \4\ and does not believe that it should be in a
position to control a member's role in another entity. In addition, the
Exchange is unable to locate such a rule at other options exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange demutualized in 2004. See Securities Exchange
Act 49098 (January 16, 2004), 69 FR 3974 (January 27, 2004) (SR-
Phlx-2003-73).
    \4\ The Exchange has not utilized this Rule in over ten years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange does require prospective members to complete
applications as prescribed in Exchange Rule 900.2 entitled ``Membership

Applications.'' The Exchange also requires disclosure regarding the
business of its members.\5\ In addition, the Exchange also has rules
regarding disclosure of other ownership and financial information.\6\
The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate Exchange Rule 795.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Exchange Rules 602 (status), 610 (Change in Business),
704 (Assignment of Partnerships), 792 (Control of Voting Stock), 794
(Assignment of Holdings), 902 (Admission to Partnership--Partnership
Arrangements) and 906 (Notice of Change in Partnership), 907
(Partners and Officers).
    \6\ See Exchange Rules 750 (Speculative Transactions for
Employees of Certain Employers), 751 (Accounts of Employees of
Member Organizations), 756 (Accounts of General Partners), 771
(Excessive Trading of Members), 772 (Trading for Joint Account), 773
(Participation in Joint Accounts),783 (Report of Financial
Arrangements) and 784 (Report of Options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest,
by requiring its members to comply with By-Laws and Rules which further
a specific business or regulatory purpose for the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 795 requires members to provide information to the
Exchange which is available on the Form U4 and also requires a member
to obtain the Exchange's permission to even indirectly own a
substantial interest in a securities business. The Exchange believes it
is unnecessary to require a member who is an officer or director of a
corporation engaged in a securities business or a member who owns or
controls, directly or indirectly, a corporation engaged in a securities
business to obtain the written permission of the Exchange or to report
ownership information which is already available to the Exchange. In
addition, the Exchange believes that the requirement to obtain
permission is unnecessary for the Exchange to carry out its regulatory
functions.
    As previously stated herein, the Exchange has not utilized this
Rule in a long time and is unable to locate such a rule at other
exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange is able to ascertain other
business relationships of a member from disclosures made by members on
their Form U4. Finally, the Exchange does not believe it is necessary
to require a member who is an officer or director of a corporation
engaged in a securities business or a member who owns or controls,
directly or indirectly, a substantial interest in a corporation engaged
in a securities business to obtain the written permission of the
Exchange or to report ownership information in order to protect
investors or the public interest.

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission shall:
    (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:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-149 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-149. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-149 and should be
submitted on or before December 12, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29872 Filed 11-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P