[Federal Register: July 9, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 132)]
[Notices]
[Page 39360-39362]
[DOCID:fr09jy08-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58069; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-054]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Regarding Technical and Conforming Changes to Nasdaq Rules

June 30, 2008.
    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 June 13, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' 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. Nasdaq
designated the proposed rule change as ``non-controversial'' under
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. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to make miscellaneous non-controversial changes to
the Nasdaq rulebook. Nasdaq proposes to implement the proposed rule
change immediately. The text of the proposed rule change is available
at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://
nasdaq.complinet.com.

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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq proposes to make miscellaneous non-controversial changes to
the Nasdaq rulebook. When Nasdaq separated from the National
Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'') and began to operate
as a national securities exchange in 2006, it adopted a rulebook with
provisions regulating member conduct that was designed to parallel the
NASD rulebook in many respects. There were three compelling reasons for
this approach. First, most Nasdaq members were expected to be members
of NASD that had traded on the Nasdaq while it was a facility of NASD,
so these members were accustomed to the requirements of NASD rules.
Second, adopting rules at variance with NASD rules would impose
unnecessary regulatory burdens on Nasdaq members by requiring them to
comply with a new rule set. Third, adopting parallel rules allowed
Nasdaq and NASD to enter into an agreement under Rule 17d-2 under the
Act \5\ (the ``17d-2 Agreement'') to allocate responsibility to NASD
for enforcement of common rules with respect to common members.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54136 (July 12,
2006), 71 FR 40759 (July 18, 2006) (File No. 4-517).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The main purpose of this rule change is to adopt conforming changes
to reflect recent changes to certain NASD rules that impact
corresponding Nasdaq rules, and to make other related changes to ensure
that duplicative regulatory burdens are not imposed on Nasdaq members.
Second, Nasdaq is also amending its rules to reflect the name change of
NASD to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'')
following its merger with elements of the New York Stock Exchange
(``NYSE'') regulatory unit. As a result of this merger, the corporate
name of the entity has changed, but NASD rules continue to be
denominated as such.\7\ Accordingly, references in the Nasdaq rules to
NASD rules are not being changed at this time, but references to the
corporate entity and its members are being changed. Third, Nasdaq is
making a range of changes aimed at deleting obsolete references and
correcting typographical errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The rules of FINRA include both NASD rules and NYSE
Regulation rules incorporated by FINRA. See http://www.finra.org/
RulesRegulation/FINRARules/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Nasdaq proposes to make the following changes:
     Amending Nasdaq Rule 1017 to conform the rule more closely
to NASD Rule 1017 so that the rule continues to be covered by the 17d-2
Agreement. Nasdaq Rule 1017 pertains to approval of changes in
ownership, control, or business operations by Nasdaq members. In SR-
NASDAQ-2007-085,\8\ Nasdaq adopted amendments to Nasdaq Rule 1017 to
shorten the time-frame for review of applications under the rule and to
simplify the standards for approval. These changes were intended to
benefit Nasdaq members that are not required to become members of FINRA
because they conduct a limited business that does not involve the
carrying of customer accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56917 (December 6,
2007), 72 FR 70632 (December 12, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-085).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of the amendments to the Nasdaq Rule, however, the
content of NASD Rule 1017 and Nasdaq Rule 1017 are now somewhat
different and therefore may not be considered eligible for coverage
under the 17d-2 Agreement. However, Nasdaq believes that no useful
regulatory purpose would be served by requiring duplicative
applications to FINRA and Nasdaq, since a joint member could not
implement a change requiring an application to FINRA until FINRA had
granted approval. Accordingly, Nasdaq is amending the rule to reinstate
the time frames for application review previously in effect and to
incorporate by reference to NASD Rule 1014 the standards for approval
of applications by FINRA members.\9\ Thus, the coverage of the rule
would be identical to the NASD rule for joint members, while the
simplified rule would continue to be applicable to Nasdaq members that
are not required to become members of FINRA. Nasdaq is also making
conforming changes to Nasdaq Rules 1012 and 1014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Nasdaq incorporates by reference a range of NASD rules,
thereby ensuring that Nasdaq members and FINRA members are subject
to comparable regulatory standards, reducing regulatory burdens on
these members, and reducing the extent to which Nasdaq must amend
its own rules to maintain comparable regulatory standards. In
connection with this filing, Nasdaq plans to submit an amended
letter to the Commission requesting an exemption from the rule
filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act for changes
to those Nasdaq rules that are effected solely by virtue of a change
to a cross-referenced NASD rule. See Letter from Edward S. Knight,
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Nasdaq, to Nancy
Morris, Secretary, Commission (January 12, 2006); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR 3550
(January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 1060 to remove the registration
exemption for

associated persons of broker-dealers engaged exclusively in options
trading. The exemption is inconsistent with recently approved rules for
the NASDAQ Options Market, which requires registration of such
persons.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and -080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adopting new Nasdaq Rule 1160 and amending Nasdaq Rules
1120, 1150, and 3520 and IM-3011-2 to conform to changes to
corresponding NASD rules \11\ regarding the time frame for members to
report changes in contact information. NASD Rule 1160 contemplates that
FINRA members will use the NASD Contact System to report changes;
because this system is not available to non-FINRA members at this time,
the corresponding Nasdaq Rule requires use of this system by Nasdaq
members that are FINRA members and submissions via e-mail or paper mail
for other Nasdaq members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56179 (August 1,
2007), 72 FR 44203 (August 7, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq IM-2110-3, IM-2110-6, and IM-2110-7, whose
text is virtually identical to corresponding NASD rules, by requiring
Nasdaq members to comply with the corresponding NASD rules, thereby
incorporating by reference the NASD rules.\12\ Similarly, Nasdaq is
incorporating by reference new NASD Rules 2290,\13\ 2342,\14\ 2441,\15\
and 3160.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 9.
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56645 (October 11,
2007), 72 FR 59317 (October 19, 2007) (SR-NASD-2005-080).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55737 (May 10,
2007), 72 FR 27606 (May 16, 2007) (SR-NASD-2006-124).
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54088 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38950 (July 10, 2006) (SR-NASD-2004-135).
    \16\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54456 (September
15, 2006), 71 FR 56203 (September 26, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-064).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 2320 and adopting IM-2320 to reflect
changes made to the corresponding NASD Rules by SR-NASD-2004-026.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54339 (August 21,
2006), 71 FR 50959 (August 28, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2004-026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 2340 to reflect changes made to the
corresponding NASD Rule by SR-NASD-2006-066.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54811 (November 22,
2006), 71 FR 69161 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-066).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq IM-2210-4, to adopt a simplified version
of the changes made to NASD IM-2210-4 by SR-FINRA-2007-014.\19\
Specifically, while NASD IM-2210-4 requires FINRA members advertising
FINRA membership on their Web sites to provide a link to the FINRA Web
site in order to provide investors with information about FINRA, Nasdaq
believes that such a requirement would be inappropriate for a for-
profit exchange such as Nasdaq. The Nasdaq rule, however, like the
FINRA rule, will provide that members may indicate Nasdaq membership in
any communication with the public, provided that the communication
complies with the applicable standards of Nasdaq Rule 2210 (which
governs member advertising) and neither states nor implies that Nasdaq,
or any other corporate name or facility affiliated with Nasdaq, or any
other regulatory organization endorses, indemnifies, or guarantees the
member's business practices, selling methods, the class or type of
securities offered, or any specific security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56615 (October 4,
2007), 72 FR 58136 (October 12, 2007) (SR-FINRA-2007-014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 3010 to reflect changes made to the
corresponding NASD Rule by SR-NASD-2003-104.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52403 (September 9,
2005), 70 FR 54782 (September 16, 2005) (SR-NASD-2003-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq IM-4390 and Rules 3390, 4611, 4619, 4625,
4756, 4758, 4761, and 6430 (redesignated as Rule 3350), and deleting
Nasdaq Rules 4602 and 4759 and IM-4759-1, to reflect the termination of
the Intermarket Trading System Plan and the NYSE Direct + System.
     Amending Nasdaq Rule 4613 and IM-4390 to eliminate
obsolete references to previously deleted rules.
     Amending Nasdaq Rule 4618 to clarify that transactions in
any security, not just Nasdaq-listed securities, may be settled ``ex-
clearing'' if the parties to the transaction agree.
     Amending Nasdaq Rule 4625 to reflect the previous deletion
of a requirement that market maker quotations be reasonably related to
the prevailing market.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56759 (November 7,
2007), 72 FR 64102 (November 14, 2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-069).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 4751 to correct technical errors in
the description of the scope of securities traded on the Nasdaq Market
Center, the definition of ``Nasdaq ECNs,'' and the definition of the
``Price to Comply Post Order,'' and to remove obsolete language
associated with the transition by the Nasdaq Market Center to the
Regulation NMS environment.
     Amending Nasdaq Rule 4758 to clarify the description of
Nasdaq's order routing options.
     Redesignating Nasdaq Rules 6430 and 6440 as Rules 3350 and
3351 and making amendments to reflect amendments to a corresponding
NASD rule, Rule 5120, that were made by SR-NASD-2006-104.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54798 (November 21,
2006), 71 FR 69156 (November 29, 2006) (SR-NASD-2006-104).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 6951 to reflect changes to the
corresponding NASD Rule made by SR-NASD-2007-028.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56003 (July 2,
2007), 72 FR 37287 (July 9, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-028).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rules 9556, 9800, 9810, and 9860 to
reflect changes to the corresponding NASD Rules made by SR-NASD-2005-
061 and SR-NASD-2007-033.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51860 (June 16,
2005), 70 FR 36427 (June 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-061); and 55819
(May 25, 2007), 72 FR 30895 (June 4, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-033).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq IM-10100 and Rules 10100 and 10102 to
reflect the replacement by FINRA of the Rule 10000 Series with the Rule
12000 and Rule 13000 Series.\25\ The NASD Rule 10000 Series governed
all arbitration disputes submitted by members, associated persons and
customers. The NASD replaced that single rule series with two rule
series: The 12000 Series governing disputes with customers and the
13000 Series governing industry disputes. Nasdaq members are subject to
the new NASD Rule 12000 and 13000 Series, just as they were subject to
the old NASD 10000 Series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55158 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4574 (January 31, 2007) (SR-NASD-2003-158 and SR-NASD-
2004-011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rule 11810 to reflect changes to the
corresponding NASD Rule made by SR-NASD-2007-035.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56972 (December 14,
2007), 72 FR 73927 (December 28, 2007) (SR-NASD-2007-035).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Amending Nasdaq Rules 0115, 1002, 2210, 2211, 3010, 3110,
4380, 9120, and 11630 and IM-3011-1 and IM-4390 to correct
typographical errors.
    Amending Nasdaq Rules 0120, 0130, 1001, 1002, 1012, 1022, 1050,
1060, 1120, 2111, 2210, 2361, 2520, 3010, 3012, 3020, 3070, 3150, 3510,
4120, 4200, 4619, 4624, 6951, 6954, 6955, 8001, 8210, 8211, 9001, 9120,
9521, 9552, 9553, 9554, 9555, 9556, 9557, 9558, 9810, 10001, 10100,
11210, 11860, and 11870, and IM-1002-4, IM-1022-2, IM-2110-2, IM-10100,
and IM-11130 to reflect the name change of NASD to FINRA.
     Amending Nasdaq Rule 2140 to reflect the change in the
name of the Commission's Division of Market

Regulation to the Division of Trading and Markets.
     Amending Nasdaq IM-10100 to correct the names of several
exchanges listed in the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\27\ in general, and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\28\ in
particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The proposed rule change
makes miscellaneous changes to Nasdaq rules to maintain appropriate
parallelism with corresponding NASD rules, in order to prevent
unnecessary regulatory burdens and promote efficient administration of
the rules. The change also makes minor updates and corrections to
certain Nasdaq rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days after the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission
may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \29\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\30\ As required under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\31\
Nasdaq provided 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, prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.\32\ However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \33\ permits the Commission to designate a
shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. Nasdaq has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay because the proposed rule
change: (1) makes miscellaneous changes to Nasdaq rules in order to
maintain appropriate parallelism with corresponding NASD rules, prevent
unnecessary regulatory burdens, and promote efficient administration of
the rules; and (2) makes minor updates and corrections to certain
Nasdaq rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest
because it will allow Nasdaq to immediately conform its rules to
corresponding NASD rules. This will ensure that such Nasdaq rules will
continue to be covered by the existing 17d-2 Agreement between Nasdaq
and FINRA and that unnecessary duplicatory regulatory burdens are not
imposed on Nasdaq members. Further, waiving the operative delay will
allow Nasdaq to immediately make minor updates and corrections to
certain Nasdaq rules, which are non-substantive and do not raise any
regulatory issues. For these reasons, the Commission designates that
the proposed rule change become operative immediately.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 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. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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.

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-NASDAQ-2008-054 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2008-054. 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, 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 Nasdaq. 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-NASDAQ-2008-054 and should
be submitted on or before July 30, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15486 Filed 7-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


    Wood Building Products Surface Coating MACT Risk and Technology Review
             National Tribal Air Association Meeting May 31, 2018
Twin Risk and Technology Review Goals:
 Determine the residual risk for cancer, non-cancer, and acute health impacts from the residual Hazardous Air Pollutants, or HAP remaining in the category source emissions after the implementation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology or MACT rules in the Clean Air Act
 Determine if there are new technologies in the source category for new controls, new processes or new productions practices that would lead to reductions in HAP emissions if they were implemented broadly.
Other Goals:
 Review the Start Up, Shut Down and Malfunction rules in the standard
 Review the Testing and Reporting Procedures
 Review Compliance Demonstration Options
Who is affected?
Five Subcategories of Sources, No such thing as a "WBP" industry; Mention Wood Furniture/Kitchen Cabinets.  The facilities are spread throughout the country and the numbers of each are roughly equal:
 Window Manufacturers
 Door Manufacturers
 Flooring Manufacturers
 Wood Paneling Manufacturers
 Wood Siding Manufacturers
What is Required?
Facilities are required to Comply with the standard by 1) Using a compliant coating based on your subcategory or 2) install controls, typically oxidizers.  Typically, in this category oxidizers were installed to control Volatile Organic Compounds or VOC and control HAP coincidentally.
New Source limits are very restrictive; 4 of the 5 subcategories are set at Zero HAP emissions.
By the Numbers
 Before/After MACT HAP emissions: 14,311 tpy before, current inventory 260 tpy.
 55 major source facilities were identified prior to proposal.  Post-proposal we have identified 5 additional facilities
 At least a dozen facilities are not major sources but may have been prior to MACT.  We estimated that there were over 200 facilities at proposal, but that was not based on accurate survey information.
 No facilities identified are on tribal lands.
 Greatest Cancer Risk: 6 in a million; only one facility, all remaining facilities met the residual risk target of 1 in a million.  Our population impact estimates showed 800 people at a risk of greater than 1 in a million.
 Greatest Non-Cancer and Acute Exposure Risks  -  both less than 1, comparable to 1 in a million for cancer.

Key Dates
 Proposal: May 16, 2018
 Comments Due: Friday, June 15, 2018
 Final Rule Signature: Before December 31, 2018
 Deadline is based on a Court Order
Key Findings and Actions in Proposal
 EPA determined risks from the source category to be acceptable and that the rule provides an ample margin of safety to protect public health.
 The technology assessment for the source category did not identify any technological developments to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants.
 Eliminate the startup, shutdown and malfunction exemption.
 Require facilities to submit electronic copies of compliance reports, including performance tests.
 Add an alternative compliance demonstration option.
 Solicit input on periodic performance testing for facilities using add-on controls
 OMB's assessment was that the proposed rule would not have a significant impact

                        National Tribal Air Association
                                   U.S. EPA

                       NTAA- EPA Air Policy Update Call
                             Thursday May 31, 2018
                                   10 am AK
                                   11 am PT
                                   12 pm MT
                                    1 pm CT
                                    2 pm ET

Call into 1-805-309-2350 to help NTAA conserve funds or toll free into 1-800-309-2350
User Code<PHONE_NUMBER>#

To view documents discussed on the call, please log on here: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1730695464315260162

When you register on the Gotowebinar screen, please type in your Tribe and Region after your last name so everyone can see who is on the call and we can avoid a lengthy roll call.

CALL AGENDA

 OAQPS Updates
 Proposed Amendments to the Federal Implementation Plan for the Indian Country Minor New Source Review Program for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry  Presenter: Chris Stoneman, OAQPS (5 to 10 mins.)

On April 30, 2018, EPA signed proposed amendments to the 2016 federal implementation plan (FIP) for managing air emissions from new and modified true minor oil and natural gas sources in Indian country. The FIP limits emissions of harmful air pollutants, while providing streamlined construction authorization for new and modified "true minor sources" in the oil and natural gas production and natural gas processing segments of the oil and natural gas sector. The proposed amendments would allow the FIP to continue to apply in portions of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation that may be included in an area EPA has designated as nonattainment for the 2015 national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The current FIP applies only in areas designated as attainment, attainment/unclassifiable or unclassifiable.  For more information on this proposal, refer to EPA's website Controlling Air Pollution from the Oil and Natural Gas Industry.

 NESHAP:  Surface Coating of Wood Building Products Residual Risk and Technology Review
Presenter:  John Bradfield, OAQPS (5 to 10 mins.)

The  EPA is proposing amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Surface Coating of Wood Building Products to address the results of the residual risk and technology review (RTR) that EPA is required to conduct under the Clean Air Act (CAA). For more information, refer to EPA's website Surface Coating of Wood Building Products: NESHAP. Comments must be received on or before 6/15/18.  (Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA - HQ - OAR - 2016 - 0678, at http://www.regulations.gov.)
 Proposed Rule: Review of the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Sulfur Oxides
Presenter:  Nicole Hagan, OAQPS (5 to 10 mins)
      The EPA proposes to retain, without revision, the current primary (health-based) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for sulfur oxides (SOX). This action falls within the context of the Clean Air Act requirement for the periodic review of the primary NAAQS for SOX.  For more information, refer to EPA's website https://www.epa.gov/naaqs/sulfur-dioxide-so2-primary-air-quality-standards

 Other EPA Updates from OAR, ORIA, OAP, OTAQ

 National Tribal Caucus Updates

 Tribal Air Monitoring Support (TAMS) Center Updates

 Institute for Environmental Professionals (ITEP) Updates

 Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Updates

 NTAA Updates and Announcements


[Federal Register: February 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8747-8750]
[DOCID:fr26fe09-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM08-3-001; Order No. 716-A]

Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination

Issued February 19, 2009.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final rule; order on rehearing.

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

SUMMARY: In this order, the Commission denies the New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.'s request for rehearing of Order No. 716,
Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination. In Order No. 716, the Commission approved as mandatory
and enforceable the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability
Standard proposed by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation.

DATES: Effective Date: This order denying rehearing of the final rule
will become effective March 30, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Gandolfo (Technical Information), Office of Electric
Reliability, Division of Reliability Standards, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502-6817.
Richard M. Wartchow (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

United States of America.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Acting Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, and Philip D. Moeller.

Order on Rehearing

(Issued February 19, 2009.)

    1. In Order No. 716, the Commission approved as mandatory and
enforceable the Nuclear Plant Interface Coordination Reliability
Standard proposed by the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC).\1\ In this order, the Commission denies the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc.'s (New York ISO) request for
rehearing of Order No. 716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Mandatory Reliability Standard for Nuclear Plant Interface
Coordination, Order No. 716, 73 FR 63,770 (Oct. 27, 2008), 125 FERC
] 61,065, addressing proposals in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NOPR), 73 FR 16,586 (Mar. 28, 2008), FERC Stats. and Regs. ] 32,629
(2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    2. On November 19, 2007, NERC, the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO), submitted for Commission approval the
Nuclear Reliability Standard, designated NUC-001-1. NERC supplemented
the filing on December 11, 2007 to propose four related NERC glossary
terms.
    3. In Order No. 716, the Commission approved the Nuclear
Reliability Standard and related definitions. In doing so, the
Commission approved the applicability provisions provided in
Requirements R1 and R2, as clarified in NERC's May 13, 2008
comments.\2\ The Nuclear Reliability Standard applies to ``transmission
entities,'' defined as ``all entities that are responsible for
providing services related to Nuclear Plant Interface Requirements
(NPIRs)'' \3\ and lists 11 types of functional entities that could
provide services related to NPIRs.\4\ In Order No. 716, the Commission
accepted NERC's clarification that the Nuclear Reliability Standard
will apply to an entity that provides services relating to a nuclear
plant generator operator's nuclear plant licensing requirements on the
later of one of two events: on the effective date, for entities in
NERC's compliance registry that already received notice in the form of
a proposed NPIR, or on the

date that a proposed NPIR is provided by the nuclear plant generator
operator.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id. P 68.
    \3\ The NERC glossary defines NPIRs as ``The requirements, based
on [nuclear plant licensing requirements] and Bulk Electric System
requirements, that have been mutually agreed to by the Nuclear Plant
Generator Operator and the applicable Transmission Entities.''
    \4\ The Nuclear Reliability Standard list of the applicable
functional entities consists of transmission operators, transmission
owners, transmission planners, transmission service providers,
balancing authorities, reliability coordinators, planning
authorities, distribution providers, load-serving entities,
generator owners and generator operators.
    \5\ Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In its Nuclear Reliability Standard Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NOPR), the Commission proposed to accept the applicability
provisions with the understanding that the Reliability Standard would
be effective against a transmission entity when it executed an
interface agreement with the nuclear plant generator operator.\6\ In
its comments, NERC clarified its initial description of the
applicability provisions and made clear that NUC-001-1 applied to
transmission entities following receipt of the notification from the
nuclear plant generator operator.\7\ Based on NERC's and other
commenters' explanations, the Commission accepted the Nuclear
Reliability Standard with the understanding that it would apply to
transmission entities that provide services relating to nuclear plant
licensing requirements on the implementation date, i.e., the NERC
effective date for the Reliability Standard. On that date, the Nuclear
Reliability Standard goes into effect immediately for transmission
entities that have received notification from the nuclear plant
generator, so long as the entity is registered on the NERC compliance
registry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NOPR at P 29.
    \7\ Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Rehearing

    5. On November 17, 2008, New York ISO filed a request for rehearing
of Order No. 716. New York ISO requests rehearing of the Commission's
determination that the Nuclear Reliability Standard applies to a
transmission entity upon receipt of notification by a nuclear plant
generator operator. New York ISO argues that this method for
determining applicability violates due process because it (1) allows
the nuclear plant generator operator to determine which entities are
subject to the Reliability Standard, and (2) does not provide
transmission entities that receive notice from a nuclear plant
generator operator any ``clear recourse if they disagree with the
nuclear plant generator operator's determination that they are
responsible for addressing a specific NPIR.'' \8\ New York ISO states
the Commission's ruling in Order No. 716 would allow an entity to
become subject to the Nuclear Reliability Standard outside the NERC
Rules of Procedure registration process, and place such an entity in
``an untenable position'' if it disagrees with the nuclear plant
generator operator that it is responsible for providing services
related to a specific NPIR. New York ISO, therefore, requests that the
Commission grant rehearing and hold that the Nuclear Reliability
Standard is not applicable to a prospective transmission entity upon
being approached by a nuclear plant generator operator with a NPIR
until the entity consents to providing services, or until it has been
found responsible for providing services by NERC or a Regional Entity,
through a dispute resolution process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ New York ISO request for rehearing at 4, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. New York ISO contends that applying the Reliability Standard to
an entity once it has been approached by a nuclear plant generator
operator with a proposed NPIR is at odds with the Commission's decision
in Order No. 693, which approved the NERC compliance registry process
to determine those users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System
that must comply with the Reliability Standards.\9\ According to New
York ISO, this approach effectively gives a nuclear plant generator
operator the authority to determine the applicability of the Nuclear
Reliability Standard (rather than NERC or a Regional Entity) without
providing any clear avenue of appeal (as would be available if the
compliance registry process were used). New York ISO claims that this
is an unexplained change in the Commission's approach to applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. at 10, citing Mandatory Reliability Standards for the
Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P
97 (2007): Each individual Reliability Standard will then identify
the set of users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System that
must comply with that standard. While the Commission may take
prospective action against an entity that was not previously
identified as a user, owner or operator through the NERC
registration process once it has been added to the registry, the
Commission will not assess penalties against an entity that has not
previously been put on notice, through the NERC registration
process, that it must comply with particular Reliability Standards.
Under this process, if there is an entity that is not registered and
NERC later discovers that the entity should have been subject to the
Reliability Standards, NERC has the ability to add the entity, and
possibly other entities of a similar class, to the registration list
and to direct corrective action by that entity on a going-forward
basis. The Commission believes that this should prevent an entity
from being subject to a penalty for violating a Reliability Standard
without prior notice that it must comply with that Reliability
Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. New York ISO would find that an entity is responsible for
providing services, and subject to the Nuclear Reliability Standard, if
it consents to provide services once it has been approached by a
nuclear plant generator operator. Alternatively, NERC or a Regional
Entity could find the entity responsible for providing services. New
York ISO proposes that, to minimize delays, an entity could be found to
constructively consent if it fails to timely invoke dispute resolution
procedures.
    8. In order to resolve disputes over whether an entity approached
by a nuclear plant generator operator is responsible for providing
services relating to a NPIR, New York ISO proposes a process to govern
the identification of transmission entities and the implementation of
interface agreements. New York ISO states that the lack of a clear
dispute resolution process is unjust and unreasonable, given the
Commission's determination that ``an entity is subject to NUC-001-1 at
the time that it is approached by a nuclear plant generator operator
about providing NPIR-related services.'' New York ISO states that the
Commission should implement a dispute resolution process that adopts
the existing registration dispute procedures, found in section 501 of
NERC's Rules of Procedure, which contain specific timelines for filing
and resolution of the dispute.
    9. In addition, New York ISO states that in Order No. 716, the
Commission should have clarified that an entity that becomes subject to
the Nuclear Reliability Standard would have a reasonable time (such as
90 days) to implement an interface agreement with a nuclear plant
generator operator after it either agrees that it is responsible for an
NPIR or has been held responsible for providing services to meet an
NPIR by NERC or a Regional Entity.

Discussion

    10. The Commission denies New York ISO's request for rehearing.
NERC previously clarified the applicability provisions in response to
the NOPR request for comment on whether the Nuclear Reliability
Standard is enforceable against a transmission entity upon execution of
an interface agreement or at some earlier time.\10\ Several of the
commenters supported NERC's clarified proposal, which was ultimately
approved in Order No. 716, while others, including the ISO/RTO Council,
expressed concerns that are similar to those raised in New York ISO's
request for rehearing, and which the Commission rejected. Nothing in
New York ISO's request for rehearing requires the Commission to revisit
that determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 34, 59. The
Reliability Standards are enforceable against a particular entity
once it is included on the compliance registry. See id. P 42-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Order No. 716 approved NERC's proposal to make the Nuclear
Reliability

Standard applicable to transmission entities once they are notified by
a nuclear plant generator operator that they are responsible for
providing services needed to support nuclear plant licensing
requirements as a result of the generator operator's delivery of a
proposed NPIR. The Commission rejected arguments that use of the term
transmission entities is inconsistent with the NERC registry
process.\11\ Furthermore, nothing in Order No. 716 supports New York
ISO's suggestion that an entity becomes subject to the Nuclear
Reliability Standard outside the NERC registration process. As with all
other Reliability Standards, the NERC registry process determines
whether an entity is a user, owner or operator of the Bulk-Power
System, and, therefore, is required to comply with the Reliability
Standards. The question whether an entity must comply with a particular
Reliability Standard--the relevant issue in this proceeding--is
resolved based on the provisions of the Reliability Standard and the
factual circumstances surrounding a given user, owner or operator of
the Bulk-Power System.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id. P 21.
    \12\ Id. P 68 (``This [approach] is consistent with other
Reliability Standards where an entity is subject to a Reliability
Standard based on the factual determination of whether it operates
certain facilities or provides a certain service, not based on the
consent of the entity.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. Contrary to New York ISO's position, the issues New York ISO
seeks to raise are outside the scope of the registry process
established in the NERC Rules of Procedure. As discussed in the NOPR,
NERC's registry process establishes procedures to identify and register
owners, operators and users of the Bulk-Power System, including
organizations performing functions listed in the definition of
transmission entities, generators that are material to the Reliable
Operation of the Bulk-Power System, and organizations that should be
subject to the Reliability Standards.\13\ NERC's decision to register
an entity, because it meets one or more of the functions established in
the registry criteria, establishes that the entity must comply with the
universe of Reliability Standards that are applicable to the functional
classes in which the entity is registered. However, NERC's registration
does not determine whether an entity must comply with each and every
Reliability Standard applicable to the functional class. Whether an
entity must comply with a particular Reliability Standard, such as NUC
-001-1, is determined based on the language of the Reliability
Standard. For the Nuclear Reliability Standard, the primary factual
issues to be addressed concern whether an entity is responsible for
providing services related to NPIRs.\14\ Order No. 716 explained:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ NOPR at P 24 n. 21 (citing Order No. 693 at P 92-96; NERC
Statement of Compliance Registry Criteria).
    \14\ NUC-001-1, section 4.2 (Applicability); see also Order No.
716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 21 (``While the Commission prefers that
Reliability Standards apply to all entities within a functional
category defined in the Registry Criteria, it has approved
appropriate limitations incorporated into an applicability
section.'').

    NERC and others have made clear that NUC-001-1 was intended to
apply to transmission entities following receipt of notification
from the nuclear plant generator operator, rather than after
execution of the interface agreement. The applicability of NUC-001-1
is determined by the function performed by the entity. * * * This is
consistent with other Reliability Standards where an entity is
subject to a Reliability Standard based on the factual determination
of whether it operates certain facilities or provides a certain
service, not based on the consent of the entity.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 68.

    13. Industry comments on the NOPR indicate that the nuclear plant
generator operator is in the best position to interpret nuclear plant
licensing requirements and system needs affecting operations, based on
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements to perform grid
stability studies, documented in plant licensing materials.\16\
Industry representatives concluded that NUC-001-1 should be enforceable
against transmission service providers whose commitments to provide
services form part of the basis for the original plant license. They
also concluded that nuclear plant licensees and transmission service
providers are already obliged to provide assurances with respect to the
capability and stability of offsite power sources for the nuclear
plant. Thus, we find appropriate NERC's reliance on nuclear plant
generator operators to identify the transmission entities that are
responsible for providing services relating to NPIRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. P 65-66.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The Nuclear Reliability Standard applies to transmission
entities that are registered with NERC and that are responsible for
providing services related to NPIRs consistent with the language of
NUC-001-1. Thus, contrary to New York ISO's assertion, this process is
consistent with the NERC registration process, which provides for
adequate review of NERC's determinations. An entity that is subject to
registration for providing services to a nuclear power plant may appeal
the registration determination.\17\ Entities who are unsure whether
NUC-001-1 applies to a given set of circumstances may seek
clarification through a request for an interpretation from NERC.\18\
Finally, an entity that believes it has been unfairly found to have
violated NUC-001-1 may appeal NERC's determination to this
Commission.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NERC Rules of Procedure, section 504.
    \18\ Any person that is ``directly and materially affected'' by
Bulk-Power System reliability may request an interpretation of a
Reliability Standard. NERC Rules of Procedure, Appendix 3A,
Reliability Standards Development Procedure (2008).
    \19\ NERC Rules of Procedure, sections 402(6) and 409-11
(establishing appeals process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. We do not find that the identification process established in
the Nuclear Reliability Standard improperly delegates authority to
nuclear plant generator operators. Under NUC-001-1, nuclear plant
generator operators must identify transmission entities by providing
proposed NPIRs to transmission entities. Such identification is no
different than the provision of any factual information under the
Reliability Standards and represents no delegation of authority.
Nuclear plant generator operators have no discretion to select
transmission entities, and are subject to penalties if they fail to
identify an entity providing services covered by NUC-001-1. As
documented in Order No. 716, the entities providing services to support
nuclear plant licensing requirements are known to the nuclear plant
generator operators and such entities are familiar with their role in
providing services, as a result of past efforts to negotiate services
needed to meet nuclear plant licensing requirements.\20\ On rehearing,
we affirm our finding that no additional consent is necessary for a
transmission entity to become subject to the Nuclear Reliability
Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 28, 65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. In its request for rehearing, New York ISO objects to what it
characterizes as the Commission's determination that a transmission
entity may become subject to the Nuclear Reliability Standard, and any
resulting enforcement action including penalties, upon being
``approached'' by a nuclear plant generator operator. We find above
that speculation as to whether an entity may be in violation of the
Nuclear Reliability Standard if it fails to execute an interface
agreement under such circumstances to be beyond the scope of this
proceeding. However, we emphasize, as discussed above, that the record
in this proceeding demonstrated that potential transmission entities
should be familiar with their roles as providing services to support
nuclear

licensing requirements.\21\ The Final Rule reflected the Commission's
intention that the approved approach to applicability would resolve
concerns that entities supplying services related to nuclear plant
licensing requirements would balk at executing an interface agreement,
if execution made them subject to NUC-001-1.\22\ Furthermore, given the
appeal rights provided for in the NERC enforcement process, we do not
believe that an entity that disagrees with its role in providing such
services will be subject to enforcement without recourse. The
Commission declines at the rulemaking phase to address issues
concerning individual entities that may be approached to provide
services relating to nuclear plant licensing requirements. Such issues
are better addressed in a proceeding providing a record detailing the
circumstances of a potential transmission entity's registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id. P 82.
    \22\ Id. P 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. We also reject New York ISO's request for an allotted period of
time to implement an interface agreement. Order No. 716 stated, ``Given
that the parties have already been able to agree to the services needed
to meet NRC licensing requirements, the same parties should be able to
successfully identify the services provided, confirm that they address
NRC criteria for off-site power and system limits, and document such
services in an auditable format consistent with the NUC-001-1
Requirements.'' \23\ Thus, it should not be a problem for these parties
to write up existing arrangements in the format required by the Nuclear
Reliability Standard. In addition, in cases where there is no immediate
risk to grid reliability, the Commission approved NERC's proposal that
it may order mediation as a remedial measure.\24\ For these reasons, we
find that it is unnecessary to incorporate additional time for parties
to negotiate and implement an interface agreement.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id. P 82.
    \24\ See discussion at id. P 75-80.
    \25\ The Commission declines to address in this order the proper
resolution of a dispute concerning an entity, not currently
responsible for providing services relating to a generator's nuclear
plant licensing requirements, that is approached by a nuclear plant
generator operator seeking to procure such services. Such issues are
better resolved based on a case-by-case review of a complete factual
record, detailing any reliability concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. In addition, the Commission in Order No. 716 rejected calls for
formal incorporation of dispute resolution procedures to resolve
registration and contract negotiation disputes and, instead, left the
use of such procedures to NERC's discretion as a mitigation option in
the event nuclear plant generator operators and transmission entities
fail to agree.\26\ Given our affirmation of the determination that no
additional consent is necessary to become subject to the Nuclear
Reliability Standard, we likewise affirm our determination that
additional dispute resolution procedures to address a failure to
consent are not necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Order No. 716, 125 FERC ] 61,065 at P 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission orders:
    New York ISO's request for rehearing is hereby denied, as discussed
in the body of this order.

    By the Commission. Commissioner Kelliher is not participating.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-3964 Filed 2-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P