[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31623-31625]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12438]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69609; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-15]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca Inc.; Order Granting
Approval of Proposed Rule Change, Modified by Amendment No. 1, Amending
Rule 6.87 In Part and Adding a New Section To Address Errors That
Involve Complex Orders

May 20, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On February 1, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange

Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's Obvious
Error Rule in part and add a new section to address errors that involve
Complex Orders. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on February 21, 2013.\3\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposal. On April 23, 2013, the Exchange
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ This order
approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68927 (February 14,
2013), 78 FR 12117 (``Notice'').
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, NYSE Arca deleted an erroneous reference
to ``Professional Customers'' in the proposal because the Exchange's
rules do not include ``Professional Customer'' as a defined
category. The Commission believes the amendment is technical in
nature and not subject to notice and comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Proposal

    The Exchange proposes several changes to its Obvious Error Rule,
Rule 6.87. First, the Exchange is proposing to change the portion of
the rule that addresses errors in series with zero or no bid.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes replacing reference to ``series
quoted no bid on the Exchange'' with ``series where the NBBO bid is
zero.'' The Exchange believes that this change ensures consistency with
other relevant parts of the rule.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to increase the amount of time in
which Market Makers are required to notify the Exchange in order to
have transactions reviewed under Rule 6.87. Under the proposal, the
time would increase from five minutes to ten minutes. The Exchange
represents that this additional time accommodates the potential need
for Market Makers to call multiple exchanges to have transactions
reviewed.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to extend the time OTP Holders acting
as agent for Customer orders have to notify the Exchange of a potential
error from twenty minutes to thirty minutes.\5\ The Exchange states
that because Customers are far removed from the execution of the trade,
it believes that it is appropriate to give Customers more time for
their requests for review to pass from their broker-dealer to the
Exchange. In contrast, the Exchange notes that other market
participants, such as firms and non-member Market Makers tend to route
their own order flow directly to the Exchange and are not as far
removed from the actual execution. The Exchange further explains that
it is fairly common for broker-dealers that receive a Customer order to
route that order to another broker-dealer that uses a router that
evaluates best execution factors to determine where to ultimate route
the order. In these situations, if a Customer chooses to request an
Obvious Error review, Customers may need more than 20 minutes for their
requests for review to reach the Exchange. The Exchange acknowledges
that extending the notification period can increase the uncertainty of
the standing of the trade, however, it believes that such uncertainty
will be limited to trades that are so outside the bounds of normal
trading that they might qualify for Obvious Error treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission notes that NYSE Arca Rule 6.87, Commentary
.06 states that ``for the purposes of Rule 6.87, the term Customer,
as defined in Rule 6.1(b)(29) or Rule 6.1A(a)(4), shall not include
a broker or dealer.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange is proposing to add a new section to Rule
6.87 to address Complex Orders in the Obvious Error context, as its
current rule is silent on how such Complex Orders are handled.
According to the Exchange, Complex Orders are often used by market
participants to enter positions known as spreads that entail limited
risk relative to an outright naked sale of a put or call. The Exchange
believes that the best approach for dealing with Complex Orders in the
Obvious Error context is to preserve the spread whenever possible to
mitigate the risk of such trades. Therefore, in the situation where a
Complex Order trades with another Complex Order in the Complex Order
Book, and one of the legs qualifies for Obvious Error treatment under
Rule 6.87, then all legs of the Complex Order will be busted unless
both parties mutually agree to an adjustment price.
    The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate not to permit
Obvious Error treatment in situations where the only error in the trade
occurred in a no-bid series. Therefore, in situations where a Complex
Order trades with another Complex Order in the Complex Order Book where
one leg qualifies for the no-bid provision of Rule 6.87, the trade will
stand as executed, unless both parties to the trade mutually agree
otherwise. The Exchange believes that this provision will prevent
manipulation and a potential increase in nullified trades, particularly
because it prevents parties from being able to enter a spread price
slightly away from the market, thus increasing the chance that one of
the legs will qualify for no-bid treatment, and providing the party
entering the order with a window of time to evaluate the market and
decide if it would be to its benefit to nullify the trade.
    Finally, the Exchange is codifying its current practice for
handling situations in which a Complex Order trades with individual
orders or quotes in the Consolidated Book. Pursuant to the proposed
Rule, each executed leg will be reviewed separately under Rule 6.87.
The Exchange notes that while it prefers to avoid the partial execution
of a Complex Order, pursuant to this provision, it is possible that
after a Complex Order trade, only one leg qualifies for Obvious Error
treatment, resulting in the residual position of a single leg. The
Exchange explains that is will not seek to nullify a valid execution in
the Consolidated Order Book of an OTP Holder who unknowingly interacted
with a leg of a Complex Order.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act \6\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\7\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\8\ which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's
rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is replacing reference to ``series quoted no bid on
the Exchange'' with ``series where the NBBO bid is zero'' because it
believes that the NBBO provides greater accuracy in determining the
value of an option because it takes into account interest from
participants across all markets, not just those active on the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that this change will promote just and
equitable principles of trade by adding more certainty and consistency
to the Exchange's Obvious Error rule. This consistency, according to
the Exchange,

is important to help avoid investor confusion.
    The Exchange believes that the change to increase the time limit
for Market Makers to request review of transactions protects investors
and the public interest because it will ensure they are comfortable
meeting the deadline, thereby allowing Market Makers to continue to
aggressively provide liquidity in a transparent and nondiscriminatory
manner to all participants. Further, the Exchange notes that increasing
the time limit for OTP Holders acting as agent for Customers to request
review of transactions should give Customers sufficient time to request
a review for trades, which is also consistent with investor protection
and furthering the public interest as it allows those market
participants furthest removed from the point of execution time to
evaluate each trade and have adequate time to notify the Exchange of a
potential error.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes that address
the handling of Complex Orders under the Obvious Error rule are
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange notes that
detailing the treatment of Complex Orders involved in Obvious Errors
provides investors with greater certainty. The Exchange also believes
that the best approach for dealing with Complex Orders in the context
of the Obvious Error rule is to preserve the spread whenever possible.
Second, the Exchange believes that preventing market participants from
busting trades solely the result of a leg(s) of a Complex Order
executing in a no-bid series furthers the protection of investors and
the public interest by preventing potential abuse. Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change provides objective
guidelines for the determination of whether an obvious price error has
occurred, as it notes that the determination of whether an ``Obvious
Error'' has occurred should be based on specific and objective criteria
and subjective to specific and objective procedures.
    The Commission notes that, in approving past proposals relating to
Obvious Errors, it has emphasized the importance of specific and
objective criteria to determine how and when to nullify or adjust
trades involving Obvious Errors.\9\ The Commission believes the changes
that comprise this current proposal further this objective. For the
reasons noted above, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change
is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which requires,
among other things, that the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Release Nos. 54228 (July 27,
2006), 71 FR 44066 (August 3, 2006) (SR-CBOE-2006-14) and 58778
(October 14, 2008), 73 FR 62577 (October 21, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2008-90)
(both approving revisions to CBOE's Obvious Error Rules).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\11\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEArca-2013-15), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is hereby approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12438 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                 Placeholder
   This .zip file has been sent to the Docket Office for upload to OneDrive
                       IPM Proposed Rule DAT (zip file)
Abstract:  EPA Integrated Planning Model (IPM) Proposed Rule - DAT (zip file containing .xlsx file available separately)


1 April 18, 2005 Additional Comments on Tech Amendments Issues 1. Delaying implementation of ramped modal testing until 2010/ Changing the dates to allow early testing with part 1065 procedures.

Our October 29, 2004 comments ( page 57 58) have comments on 86.1362 2007( a), wherein EMA requested that manufacturers have the option to use the ramped modal cycle prior to the 2007 model year, but that the regulatory language not mandate use of the ramped modal test until 2010. Manufacturers need this for flexibility, in order to take advantage of improved procedures where they are able to implement then. This is consistent also with our comments on 86.1301, which we most recently stated in our April 5, 2005, phone conversation as follows:

86.1301( a) For model years 1990 through 2004 [ not 2003], manufacturers must use... 86.1301( b) For model years 2005 through 2009 [ not 2004 through 2007], manufacturers may use... 86.1301( c) For model years 2010 and later [ not 2008 and later], manufacturers must use...

We supported this also on pages 56 57 of our October 29 comments, including the attachment to our comments which was the Greg Green December 3, 2002 letter to Jed Mandel allowing for early use of the new procedures. It is our understanding further that Matt Spears has agreed that the new procedures won't be mandatory until 2010. The foregoing date changes are meant to clarify that flexibility.

2. Increasing the flexibility of making noncompliant engines for marine diesel applications ( 94.1103).

EMA's October 29 comments, page 43, address this issue. A requirement that the Administrator ( under ( b)( 4)) or the manufacturer ( under ( b)( 3)) determine that there is not an appropriate certified replacement engine from any manufacturer will require an exhaustive search that can require significant time and create significant financial burdens. It is unreasonable and burdensome to require manufacturers to have to find out whether any of their competitors have appropriate engines if a customer comes to them requesting a replacement. Rather than require a determination that no certified engine is available, the language of 94.1103( b) should be revised to be consistent with the provisions for nonroad replacement engines in 89.1003( b)( 7)( i) or 1068.240( b)( 3) as follows:

( 3) Where the Administrator determines that no engine produced by the manufacturer requesting the replacement or by the manufacturer of the engine that is being replaced, if Two North LaSalle Street Suite 2200 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Tel: 312/ 827 8700 Fax: 312/ 827 8737 www. enginemanufacturers. org 2 different, and certified to the requirements of this part, is available with the appropriate physical or performance characteristics . . . .

* * * ( 4) An engine manufacturer may make the determination related to replacement engines described in paragraph ( b)( 3) of this section instead of the Administrator, if the new engine is needed to replace an engine that has experienced catastrophic failure. The engine manufacturer must keep records explaining why no new engine produced by itself or by the manufacturer of the engine that is being replaced, if different, and certified to the requirements of this part could be used to replace . . . .

3. Adopting the labeling provisions for marine engine shortened useful life ( 94.9).

The useful life should be required on the label only if a manufacturer has opted to define a shorter useful life. This is consistent with the requirements for labeling of nonroad engines under 1039.135( 11). EPA indicated they would be willing to add language in 94.212 that is consistent with the default language of 1039.135, and we recommend the following:

94.212 (___). State the useful life if we approve a shortened useful life under section 94.9( a)( 3).

4. Expanding the staged assembly exemption for parts 89 and 92.

Manufacturers request that the language added to 94.913, 1068.260( h) and 85.1713( k) also be included specifically in Part 89 and in Part 92, to remain consistent across all applications, as follows:

89.____ and 92.____. You may ask us to provide a temporary exemption to allow you to complete production of your engines at different facilities, as long as you maintain control of the engines until they are in their certified configuration. We may require you to take specific steps to ensure that such engines are in their certified configuration before reaching the ultimate purchaser. You may request an exemption under this section in your application for certification, or in a separate submission to the Designated Compliance Officer.

5. Fuel Labeling for 2006/ 2007 MY Highway Engines and Vehicles The light duty regulatory text for vehicle labeling ( 86.1807 07) requires that model year 2007 and later diesel fueled vehicles certified with 15 ppm or less sulfur fuel include labels on the dash and near fuel filler that read " Use Low sulfur Diesel Fuel Only".

The Heavy Duty on highway regulations for labeling ( 86.007 35 c) were revised as part of the final rule published for the non road Tier IV rule published June 29, 2004 to include labels on the dash and near all fuel inlets that read " Use Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel Fuel Only". 3 There is a slightly different pump labeling requirement as part of the fuel regulation. The 15 ppm sulfur standard fuel requires a pump label that reads " Ultra Low Sulfur Highway Diesel Fuel ( 15 ppm Sulfur Maximum)". The 500 ppm sulfur standard fuel requires a pump label that reads " Low Sulfur Highway Fuel ( 500 ppm Sulfur Maximum)".

The concern is that the current light duty requirement will cause vehicles to be labeled with the wrong fuel type based on what is going to be stated on the fuel dispensing pumps.

EMA recommends that EPA make the needed changes to 86.1807 07 to correct this error.

EMADOCS: 6711.1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28785-28786]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11845]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9671-4]
RIN 2060-AR35

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA issued ``Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' as a
direct final rule on February 21, 2012. Because the EPA received
adverse comments on this action, we are withdrawing the direct final
rule.

DATES: As of May 16, 2012, the EPA withdraws the direct final rule
revisions published on February 21, 2012, at 77 FR 10342.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeremy Mark, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9087, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic copies of this
document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA issued ``Revisions to Federal
Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone'' as a direct final rule on February 21, 2012. See 77
FR 10342. The direct final rule would have amended the preamble and
rule text to the ``Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP Approvals''
(Transport Rule), published August 8, 2011, to revise certain state
emission budgets, variability limits, and new unit set-asides.
Specifically, this direct final rule would have revised 2012 and/or
2014 state budgets and variability limits in Arkansas, Georgia,
Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Nebraska,
Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and revised new unit set-
asides in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri. See 77 FR 10342.
    The EPA also issued a parallel proposal on February 21, 2012, that
proposed to make the same revisions outlined in the direct final rule.
See 77 FR 10350. The EPA stated in the direct final rule revisions that
if we received significant adverse comment by February 21, 2012, we
would publish a timely notice of withdrawal of the direct final rule in
the Federal Register.
    The EPA received several comments on the direct final rule and the
parallel proposal. Many of the comments support the specific revisions
made in the direct final rule, but some are adverse or adverse in part.
Generally, where the comments are adverse, they support the revisions
that would have been made by the direct final rule but argue the
revisions should have gone further. In addition, a number of the
comments duplicate comments to which EPA has previously responded.
    Because EPA received adverse comments, we are withdrawing the
direct final rule, ``Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone.'' 77
FR 10342. The EPA intends to act on the parallel

proposal as expeditiously as possible and will address relevant
comments in that final action. As stated in the parallel proposal, the
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 97

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: May 10, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

PART 97--[AMENDED]

0
Accordingly, the revisions to the rule published in the Federal
Register on February 21, 2012 (77 FR 10342) on pages 10342-10349 are
withdrawn as of May 16, 2012.

[FR Doc. 2012-11845 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 178 (Thursday, September 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56645-56646]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19971]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER22-2817-000]

Eastover Solar 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
Eastover Solar 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 September 29, 2022.
    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 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://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. 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 protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 9, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19971 Filed 9-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 69172-69173]
[DOCID:fr29no06-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54793; File No. SR-OCC-2006-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Accelerate the Expiration
Date of American-Style Equity Options That Have Been Adjusted To Call
for Cash-Only Delivery

 November 20, 2006.
    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 26, 2006, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change described in Items I, II, and III below, which
items have been prepared primarily by OCC. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to accelerate the
expiration date of American-style equity options that have been
adjusted to call for cash-only delivery to the earliest practicable
regular expiration date. OCC currently has such authority with respect
to European-style options that have been so adjusted.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B),

and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by OCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In a cash-out merger, the common equity of the acquired company
(``Security'') is converted into a right to receive a fixed amount of
cash. On the day after the announced consummation date for the merger,
the stock exchanges on which the Security is traded suspend all trading
in the Security. Concurrently, the option exchanges discontinue trading
in options overlying the Security. If a customer does not liquidate an
out-of-the-money option position before the exchange halts trading, its
broker must carry the position until it expires. With increasing volume
and the proliferation of options with long expiration dates, clearing
members' cost and operational overhead of carrying these positions is
significant. In an effort to reduce these costs, OCC adopted Rule 807
in 1998 to provide for acceleration of the expiration date of European-
style equity options that have been converted to a cash deliverable.
OCC now proposes to extend Rule 807 to cover American-style equity
options.
    Under the proposed rule change, OCC typically would accelerate the
expiration date of American-style and European-style equity options
that are adjusted to call for a cash deliverable to the earliest
practicable regular expiration date. OCC proposes to set the exercise
by exception price threshold for the adjusted contracts at $.01 per
share of the amount of the cash deliverable.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ OCC also proposes to make a conforming change to Rule 1106.
Every option contract that has an exercise price below (in the case
of a call) or above (in the case of a put) the amount of the cash
deliverable by $.01 or more will be deemed to have been exercised
immediately prior to the accelerated expiration time unless the
clearing member directs otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OCC proposes to implement the rule change on January 1, 2008, to
allow clearing members and customers sufficient time to prepare for the
change of methodology. OCC will not implement the proposed rule change
until definitive copies of an appropriate revision of or supplement to
the options disclosure document, Characteristics and Risks of
Standardized Options, are available for distribution.
    OCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \5\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder because it would eliminate inefficient
procedures for clearance and settlement that impose unnecessary costs
on investors and persons facilitating transactions by and acting on
behalf of investors. As such, OCC believes it is designed to promote
the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any
burden on competition.

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

    Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with
respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.

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

    Within thirty-five 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 ninety 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 self-regulatory organization consents,
the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-OCC-2006-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2006-20. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filings also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC and
on OCC's Web site at http://www.optionsclearing.com/publications/rules/proposed_changes/sr_occ_06_20.pdf.
 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-OCC-2006-20 and should be submitted on
or before December 20, 2006.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20209 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 36534]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13411]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Joint Electric System
Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee
Meeting

June 7, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-06-07.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Management Committee
Meeting

June 14, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2016-06-14.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Business Issues
Committee Meeting

June 15, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2016-06-15.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Operating Committee
Meeting

June 16, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2016-06-16.

The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. Joint Electric System
Planning Working Group and Transmission Planning Advisory Subcommittee
Meeting

June 22, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2016-06-22.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-120.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-1942.
    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER16-966.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: June 1, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13411 Filed 6-6-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6376-6380]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2497]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0805; FRL-9261-8]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana and Ohio;
Disapproval of Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Revision
for the 2006 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA
is proposing to disapprove the portions of submittals by the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) and the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) that pertain to requirements
of the CAA to address interstate transport for the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). EPA is not, however, currently taking action on the remainder
of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittals from IDEM and Ohio
EPA concerning other basic or ``Infrastructure'' elements required
under the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0805, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2009-0805. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA

cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Andy Chang, Environmental
Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. 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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for this action?
III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What is the background for this action?

    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit basic or
``Infrastructure'' SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within three
years after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter
period as EPA may prescribe. As provided by section 110(k)(2) of the
CAA, within twelve months of a determination that a submitted SIP is
complete under 110(k)(1) of the CAA, the Administrator shall act on the
plan. As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, where portions of
the State submittals are severable, within that twelve-month period EPA
may approve the portions of the submittals that meet the requirements
of the CAA, take no action on certain portions of the submittals, and
disapprove the portions of the submittals that do not meet the
requirements of the CAA. When the deficient provisions are not
severable from all of the submitted provisions, EPA must propose
disapproval of the submittals, consistent with section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA.
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that such new
Infrastructure SIPs must address, as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to interstate transport of certain
emissions, also known as the CAA ``good neighbor'' provisions.
    On December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 micrograms per
cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ (see, 71 FR 61144).\1\ On
September 25, 2009, EPA issued its ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required
Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(2009 Guidance). EPA developed the 2009 Guidance for States making
submissions to meet the requirements of section 110, including
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the revised 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The rule for the revised PM2.5 NAAQS was signed
by the Administrator and publically disseminated on September 21,
2006. Because EPA did not prescribe a shorter period for 110(a) SIP
submittals, these submittals for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS were due on September 21, 2009, three years from the September
21, 2006 signature date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As identified in the 2009 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State to submit a
SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another State in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four
distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport.
The SIP must prevent sources in the State from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS
in other States; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in other States; or (4) interfere with
efforts to protect visibility in other States.
    In the 2009 Guidance, EPA indicated that SIP submissions from
States pertaining to the ``significant contribution'' and ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) should
contain adequate provisions to prohibit air pollutant emissions from
within the State that contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other State. EPA further
indicated that the State's submission should explain whether or not
emissions from the State have this impact and, if so, address the
impact. EPA stated that the State's conclusion should be supported by
an adequate technical analysis. EPA recommended the various types of
information that could be relevant to support the State SIP submission,
such as information concerning emissions in the State, meteorological
conditions in the State and the potentially impacted States, monitored
ambient concentrations in the State, and air quality modeling.
Furthermore, EPA indicated that States should address the ``interfere
with maintenance'' requirement independently, which requires an
evaluation of impacts on areas of other States that are meeting the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, not merely areas designated
nonattainment. Lastly, in the 2009 Guidance, EPA stated that States
could not rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to comply with
the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS because CAIR does not address this NAAQS.
    EPA promulgated CAIR on May 12, 2005 (see, 70 FR 25162). CAIR
required

States to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that
significantly contribute to, and interfere with maintenance of the 1997
NAAQS for PM2.5 and/or ozone in any downwind State. CAIR was
intended to provide States covered by the rule with a mechanism to
satisfy their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations to address
significant contribution to downwind nonattainment and interference
with maintenance in another State with respect to the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Many States adopted the CAIR provisions and
submitted SIPs to EPA to demonstrate compliance with the CAIR
requirements in satisfaction of their 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations
for those two pollutants.
    EPA was sued by a number of parties on various aspects of CAIR, and
on July 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit issued its decision to vacate and remand both CAIR and
the associated CAIR FIPs in their entirety. North Carolina v. EPA, 531
F.3d 836 (DC Cir. 2008). However, in response to EPA's petition for
rehearing, the Court issued an order remanding CAIR to EPA without
vacating either CAIR or the CAIR FIPs. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d
1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The Court thereby left CAIR in place in order to
``temporarily preserve the environmental values covered by CAIR'' until
EPA replaces it with a rule consistent with the Court's opinion. Id. at
1178. The Court directed EPA to ``remedy CAIR's flaws'' consistent with
its July 11, 2008 opinion, but declined to impose a schedule on EPA for
completing that action. Id.
    In order to address the judicial remand of CAIR, EPA has proposed a
new rule to address interstate transport pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), the ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (Transport
Rule).\2\ As part of the proposed Transport Rule, EPA specifically
examined the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirement that emissions from
sources in a State must not ``significantly contribute to
nonattainment'' and ``interfere with maintenance'' of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS by other States. The modeling performed for the
proposed Transport Rule shows that both Indiana and Ohio significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in downwind areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See ``Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Proposed Rule,'' 75
FR 45210 (August 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IDEM and Ohio EPA made submittals on October 20, 2009, and
September 4, 2009, respectively, that were intended to demonstrate
satisfaction of all Infrastructure SIP elements for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. Both States relied predominantly on their
respective EPA-approved CAIR regulations to meet the interstate
transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Indiana further
committed to amend its rule once the Federal CAIR is amended or
replaced.

III. What is EPA's evaluation of the States' submittals?

    Indiana and Ohio each asserted in their submissions that they have
met their section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS by a series of regulations,
including their approved CAIR rules.\3\ However, CAIR was promulgated
before the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS were revised in 2006 and does
not address interstate transport with respect to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.\4\ Thus, as EPA's 2009 Guidance explicitly
notes, States cannot rely on CAIR to comply with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
Furthermore, Indiana and Ohio provided no analyses to assess the
quantity of emissions which can be permitted within the State
consistent with the requirement to prohibit emissions which interfere
with attainment and maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS in other States. Because the submittals from Indiana and Ohio
relied predominantly on CAIR to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS while CAIR does not address that NAAQS, and because Indiana and
Ohio provided no analysis or supplemental rules expressly addressing
the requirement to prohibit emissions that interfere with attainment
and maintenance of this standard, the submissions are deficient.
Furthermore, Indiana and Ohio will not be able to permanently rely upon
the emissions reductions predicted by CAIR, because EPA needs to
address the concerns of the Court as outlined in its decision remanding
CAIR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Indiana's CAIR regulations were fully approved by EPA on
November 29, 2010 (see, 75 FR 72956). Ohio's CAIR regulations were
fully approved by EPA on September 29, 2009 (see, 74 FR 48857).
    \4\ Further, as explained above and in the Transport Rule
proposal, 75 FR 45210 (August 2, 2010), the DC Circuit in North
Carolina v. EPA found that EPA's quantification of States'
significant contribution and interference with maintenance in CAIR
was improper and remanded the rule to EPA. CAIR remains in effect
only temporarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, EPA cannot approve Indiana's and Ohio's SIP
submissions pertaining to the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA
also concludes that the elements of the Infrastructure SIP submittals
from Indiana and Ohio addressing the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS are severable; therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove those
provisions which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
demonstration, while taking no action on the remainder of the
Infrastructure SIP submittals from each respective State.
    In addition to relying on the State's CAIR regulations, Indiana's
October 20, 2009 submittal cited various programs that IDEM has adopted
and implemented related to interstate transport. These measures include
stack height requirements, acid deposition control regulations, and the
Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program (NOX SIP Call).
Although EPA's 2009 Guidance directed that a State's submittal must be
supported by an adequate technical analysis, no such analysis was
provided by IDEM justifying that these measures are sufficient to meet
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Furthermore, programs
such as the Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program have limited
relevance to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\5\ EPA finds that
these measures are not sufficient to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
previously mentioned, EPA is proposing to disapprove the provisions
which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration, while
taking no action on the remainder of the Infrastructure SIP submittal
from Indiana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program was effectively
replaced by CAIR's NOX ozone season trading program, and
only addresses summertime NOX. PM2.5 and
SO2 (a precursor to PM2.5) are not addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Ohio also asserted in its September 4, 2009, submittal
that other regulations in the State have been adopted and implemented
in order to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Specifically, the State referenced rules pertaining to stack height
requirements, acid rain permits and compliance, the Nitrogen Oxides
Budget Trading Program (NOX SIP Call), and the Clean Air
Mercury Rule. Additionally, Ohio EPA cited instances where the existing
SIP was revised to alleviate modeled violations in two neighboring
States. Although EPA's 2009 Guidance directed that a State's

submittal must be supported by an adequate technical analysis, no such
analysis was provided by Ohio EPA justifying that these measures are
sufficient to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Furthermore, programs such as the Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading
Program and the Clean Air Mercury Rule have limited relevance to the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\6\ EPA finds that these measures
are not sufficient to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. As
previously mentioned, EPA is proposing to disapprove the provisions
which relate to the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) demonstration, while
taking no action on the remainder of the Infrastructure SIP submittal
from Ohio.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (section 171--section 193
of the CAA), or is required in response to a finding of substantial
inadequacy as described in section 110(k)(5) starts a sanction clock.
The provisions in the submittals we are disapproving were not submitted
by Indiana or Ohio to meet either of those requirements. Therefore, if
EPA takes final action to disapprove these submittals, no sanctions
under section 179 will be triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Nitrogen Oxides Budget Trading Program was effectively
replaced by CAIR's NOX ozone season trading program, and
only addresses summertime NOX. PM2.5 and
SO2 (a precursor to PM2.5) are not addressed.
The Clean Air Mercury Rule was vacated in 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The full or partial disapproval of a SIP revision triggers the
requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the
disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and the
Administrator approves the plan or plan revision before the
Administrator promulgates such FIP. The proposed Transport Rule, when
final, is the FIP that EPA intends to implement for the States of
Indiana and Ohio.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove
submittals from Indiana and Ohio intended to demonstrate that each
respective State has adequately addressed the elements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with regard to the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. This action pertains only to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I); the States' submittals for the remainder of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIPs will be
addressed in separate rulemakings.

V. 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.

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review under the Executive Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
because this proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter
I, part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new
information collection burdens but simply disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of
the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the
SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for
small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher offset
requirements) may or will flow from this disapproval does not mean that
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector.'' EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and
imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national

government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely disapproves certain State
requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this action.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
EPA is proposing to disapprove would not 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. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997).This proposed SIP disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I,
part D of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations
but simply disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into
the SIP.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA.

Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 110
of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter.

    Dated: January 28, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-2497 Filed 2-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P