[Federal Register: June 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 31528-31529]
[DOCID:fr02jn08-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57872; File No. SR-Phlx-2008-27]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Relating To Access to XLE on
Phlx's Options Floor

May 27, 2008.
    On April 11, 2008, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``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: (1) Delete Phlx Rule 1014(e)(iii), which
limits the actions of Registered Options Traders (``ROTs'') related to
trading in Phlx's equity market in certain situations, and (2) add new
Phlx Rule 175 to prohibit integrated market making by Phlx market
makers. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 24, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57683 (April 18,
2008), 73 FR 22199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete Phlx Rule 1014(e)(iii), which
limits the actions of ROTs related to trading in Phlx's equity market
in certain situations, in order to permit members and member
organizations on the Phlx options floor to have connectivity to XLE,
the Phlx's electronic equity trading system. The Exchange also proposes
new Phlx Rule 175 to prohibit integrated market making by Phlx market
makers. Specifically, Phlx Rule 175 prohibits Phlx Market Makers on

XLE, or any member, limited partner, officer, or associated person
thereof, from acting as an options Specialist or ROT or functioning in
any capacity involving market making responsibilities, in any option
overlying a security in which the Market Maker on XLE is registered as
such.
    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the deletion of Phlx Rule 1014(e)(iii) is
consistent with the Act. Phlx Rule 1014(e)(iii) was designed to
mitigate the ``time and place'' advantages available to a ROT with
access to the Phlx equities trading floor. The Commission notes that
the Phlx no longer operates a physical equities trading floor. The
Commission also notes that possession of XLE order entry technology by
Phlx options floor participants does not offer any special information
advantage that could be used on the Phlx options floor because access
to XLE information is made available simultaneously to anyone.
Likewise, physical presence on the Phlx options floor does not provide
an advantage in priority for orders entered into XLE from the Phlx
options floor because XLE executes orders in price-time priority based
on a pre-set algorithm that may not be altered by the XLE participant
entering the order and does not take into account the location where an
order is entered. In addition, the Commission notes that options floor
participants currently have access to other execution venues and order
routing mechanisms for the underlying securities.
    The Commission also finds that the prohibition on integrated market
making is consistent with the Act.
    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\6\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2008-27) be, and hereby
is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-12195 Filed 5-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17255-17256]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07145]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL_9957-03-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, Commonwealth of Virginia

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the Commonwealth of
Virginia's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic
reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective May 10, 2017 for the Commonwealth of
Virginia's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a public hearing is received and
accepted by the Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow

electronic reporting, to be used at the option of the state, tribe or
local government in place of procedures available under existing
program-specific authorization regulations. An application submitted
under the subpart D procedures must show that the state, tribe or local
government has sufficient legal authority to implement the electronic
reporting components of the programs covered by the application and
will use electronic document receiving systems that meet the applicable
subpart D requirements. Once an authorized program has EPA's approval
to accept electronic documents under certain programs, CROMERR Sec.
3.1000(a)(4) requires that the program keep EPA apprised of any changes
to laws, policies, or the electronic document receiving systems that
have the potential to affect the program's compliance with CROMERR
Sec.  3.2000.
    On January 27, 2017, the Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
submitted an amended application titled Compliance Monitoring Data
Portal for revision to its EPA-approved drinking water program under
title 40 CFR to allow new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed VDH's
request to revise its EPA-authorized program and, based on this review,
EPA determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revision/modification set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Virginia's request to revise its Part 142--National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation program to allow
electronic reporting under 40 CFR part 141 is being published in the
Federal Register.
    VDH was notified of EPA's determination to approve its application
with respect to the authorized program listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the
Commonwealth of Virginia's request to revise its authorized public
water system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR
3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30
days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests
should include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the Commonwealth of Virginia's request to
revise its part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become
effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to
CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-07145 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7032-7033]
[DOCID:fr10fe06-62]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-2-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Potomac Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

February 3, 2006.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation's (Transco) proposed Potomac Expansion Project involving
construction and operation of facilities in Pittsylvania, Campbell, and
Fairfax Counties, Virginia. This EA will be used by the Commission in
its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process that the
Commission will use to gather environmental input from the public and
interested agencies on the Potomac Expansion Project. Your input will
help determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note
that the scoping period will close on March 17, 2006. Details on how to
submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of
this notice.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities.
The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that
approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if
easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline
company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with
state law.
    With this notice, we \1\ are asking other federal, state, local,
and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with
respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation
of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status
should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact

sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Transco proposes to expand its existing pipeline facilities in
Pittsylvania and Campbell Counties, Virginia and replace a portion of
an existing natural gas pipeline in Fairfax County, Virginia (see map
in Appendix A \2\). The expansion would consist primarily of looping
\3\ Transco's existing pipeline system for about 21.2 miles and
replacement of about 3.4 miles of pipeline. The Potomac Expansion
Project is proposed to begin construction in March 2007 and place
facilities in service by November 2007, contingent on the project being
certificated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendix referenced in this notice is not being printed
in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the Commission's
Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the public
participation section of this notice.
    \3\ A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed
adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends.
The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, Transco seeks authority to construct and operate the
following facilities:
     Pipeline Facilities

--About 17.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter loop in Pittsylvania County,
Virginia.
--About 4.0 miles of 42-inch-diameter loop in Campbell County,
Virginia.
--Replace 3.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline with 42-inch-diameter
pipeline in Fairfax County, Virginia.

     Miscellaneous facilities

--Mainline valve (MLV) setting and pig launcher and receiver in
Pittsylvania County, Virginia.
--MLV setting and pig launcher in Campbell County, Virginia.
--MLV setting and pig launcher and receiver in Fairfax County,
Virginia.

The EA Process

    The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the
EA. The document will satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Potomac Expansion Project is in
the preliminary design state.
    For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its NEPA review
prior to receiving the application. The purpose of the Commission's
Pre-Filing Process is to involve interested stakeholders early in
project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an
application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF06-2-000) has
been established to place information filed by Transco, and related
documents issued by the Commission, into the public record. Once a
formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be
established.
    NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental
impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the
issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA
also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have
about proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main
goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the
important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are
requesting public comments on the scope of the issues that should be
addressed in the EA. We will consider all comments received during
scoping in the preparation of the EA.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending
on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be
published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected
officials; environmental and public interest

groups; other interested parties; affected landowners; Native American
tribes; libraries, and newspapers; and the Commission's official
service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for
review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA
before we make our recommendations to the Commission.
    To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the
instructions in the public participation section.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposal. By becoming a commentor, your
concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission.
You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the
proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative
locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The
more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please
carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are
received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St. NE.; Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 1, DG2E; and
     Reference Docket No. PF06-2-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before March 17, 2006.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See Title
18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's internet website at http://www.ferc.gov
 under the ``eFiling'' link and the link to the user's

Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if
filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you
can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on
``Login to File'' and then ``New User Account.'' You will be asked to
select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a
``Comment on Filing.''
    When Transco submits its application for authorization to construct
and operate the Potomac Expansion Project, the Commission will publish
a Notice of Application in the Federal Register and will establish a
deadline for interested persons to intervene in the proceeding. Because
the Commission's Pre-Filing Process occurs before an application to
begin a proceeding is officially filed, petitions to intervene during
this process are premature and will not be accepted by the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you received this notice, you are on the environmental mailing
list for the Potomac Expansion Project and will continue to receive
project updates including the EA. If you want your contact information
corrected or you do not want to remain on our mailing list, please
return the Correct or Remove From Mailing List Form included as
Appendix B.
    To reduce printing and mailing costs, the EA may be issued in both
CD-ROM and hard copy formats. The FERC strongly encourages the use of
the CD-ROM format in its publication of documents. If you wish to
receive a paper copy of the EA instead of a CD-ROM, you must indicate
that choice on the return postcard (Appendix B).

Availability of Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary''

link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and
enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket
Number field (i.e., PF06-2). Be sure you have selected an appropriate
date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rule makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-1857 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37280-37287]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13163]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0718; FRL-9935-01-R4]

Air Plan Approval; NC: Inspection and Maintenance Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of North Carolina on December 14, 2020, through the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Division of Air
Quality (DAQ), for the purpose of removing Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham
Counties from North Carolina's motor vehicle inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program. The I/M Program was previously approved into the SIP for
use as a component of the State's Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Budget and Allowance Trading Program. EPA has evaluated whether this
SIP revision would interfere with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act), including EPA regulations related to statewide
NOX emissions budgets. In summary, EPA proposes to find that
Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties would continue to attain and
maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
standards) after removal of the I/M program, and to rely on an
emissions inventory comparison to inform its determination that the
three counties would continue to attain and maintain the ozone and
carbon monoxide (CO) NAAQS. Consequently, EPA is proposing to determine
that North Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP revision is consistent
with the applicable provisions of the CAA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 22, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2020-0718 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via electronic mail
at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What is being proposed?

    The DAQ submitted a SIP revision on December 14, 2020, seeking to
remove Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from North Carolina's SIP-
approved I/M program. The DAQ submitted this SIP revision in response
to North Carolina legislation enacted in Session Law 2020-5, House Bill
85, which amended North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) section 143-
215.107A(c) to remove these three counties from the North Carolina I/M
Program.\1\ Specifically, the North Carolina Act requires the
elimination of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the I/M
program, and the retention of the I/M program in 19 counties (Alamance,
Buncombe, Cabarrus, Cumberland, Davidson, Durham, Forsyth, Franklin,
Gaston, Guilford, Iredell, Johnston, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, New Hanover,
Randolph, Rowan, Union, and Wake).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The removal becomes effective sixty days after the State's
Secretary of the Department of Environmental Quality certifies to
the State's Revisor of Statutes that EPA approved the SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in Section II, below, sections 187(a)(4) and 182(b)(4)
of the CAA require the implementation of an I/M program in certain
areas classified as moderate nonattainment or higher for the ozone or
CO NAAQS.\2\ Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties have never been
designated nonattainment for ozone and CO, or any other NAAQS, and are
currently in attainment for all NAAQS. These three counties were
included in the State's I/M program to provide North Carolina with
emissions credit for the NOX SIP Call obligations. See 67 FR
66056 (October 30, 2002). The NOX SIP Call, issued by EPA in
1998, required some states, including North Carolina, to meet statewide
NOX emission requirements during the ozone season (May 1
through September 30 control period) to reduce the amount of ground
level ozone that is transported across the eastern United States. See
84 FR 8422 (March 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The I/M program was never a mandatory program pursuant to
the CAA for Lee, Onslow, or Rockingham counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the State's December 14, 2020, submittal requesting
removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from North Carolina's
SIP-approved I/M program, the State included a CAA section 110(l) non-
interference demonstration. Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA cannot
approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any

applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined by section 171 of the CAA), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. Section III, below, provides EPA's
analysis of the non-interference demonstration.
    For the reasons discussed more fully in Section III, EPA is
proposing to find that removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties
from North Carolina's SIP-approved I/M program (and consequently, the
removal of reliance on credits gained from I/M emissions reductions
from Lee, Onslow and Rockingham counties in the State's NOX
Budget and Allowance Trading Program) will not interfere with North
Carolina's obligations under the NOX SIP Call. This proposed
finding is based on a number of federal rules and SIP-approved State
provisions promulgated and implemented subsequent to the 2002 approval
of North Carolina's NOX SIP Call submission. These federal
rules and SIP provisions have created significant NOX
emission reductions in North Carolina such that the credits gained by
the three counties' participation in the I/M program are no longer
needed for North Carolina to meet its NOX SIP Call Statewide
NOX emissions budget. North Carolina has provided an
analysis which supports this proposed finding, and which discusses some
of these federal rules and SIP-approved State provisions. See Section
III, below.
    In addition, North Carolina's SIP revision evaluates the impact
that the removal of the I/M program for the Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham
counties would have on the State's ability to attain and maintain the
NAAQS. The SIP revision contains a technical demonstration with revised
emissions calculations showing that removing the three counties from
the I/M program will not interfere with North Carolina's attainment or
maintenance of any NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of
the CAA. As discussed more fully in Section III, EPA is proposing to
find that North Carolina's revised emissions calculations demonstrate
that removing Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the I/M program
will not interfere with the State's ability to attain or maintain any
NAAQS.

II. What is the background of North Carolina's I/M program and its
relationship to the NOX SIP call and the State's
NOX budget and allowance trading program?

A. History of North Carolina's I/M Program

    The North Carolina I/M program began in 1982 in Mecklenburg County
utilizing a ``tail-pipe'' emissions test. In 1984, Wake County was
first added to the program for CO NAAQS violations. From 1986 through
1991 the program expanded to include Cabarrus, Davidson, Durham,
Forsyth, Gaston, Guilford, and Union Counties, to address violations of
the ozone and/or CO NAAQS. The I/M program was also implemented in
Orange County although it was not designated nonattainment for the
ozone or CO NAAQS.
    In 1999, the North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA) passed
legislation (Session law 1999-328) to expand the coverage area for the
I/M program to gain additional emission reductions to achieve the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State. This legislation expanded the I/M
program to add 38 counties between July 1, 2003, and July 1, 2006, for
a total of 48 counties.3 4 The I/M program in the expanded
coverage area used on-board diagnostic (OBD) rather than tail-pipe
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The 38 counties added during this time period were Alamance,
Buncombe, Brunswick, Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, Catawba, Chatham,
Cleveland, Craven, Cumberland, Edgecombe, Franklin, Grainville,
Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Iredell, Lee, Lenoir, Lincoln,
Johnston, Moore, Nash, New Hanover, Onslow, Pitt, Randolph,
Robertson, Rockingham, Rowan, Rutherford, Stanly, Stokes, Surry,
Wayne, Wilkes, and Wilson.
    \4\ In 2004, the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill area was
designated as moderate nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, which required Iredell, Lincoln, and Rowan Counties to be
included in the I/M program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 7, 2002, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to amend
the I/M regulations included in the SIP at that time to, among other
things, expand the counties subject to the I/M program as discussed
above, and to require OBD in the subject counties for all light duty
gasoline vehicles with a model year (MY) of 1996 and newer.
Additionally, the SIP revision proposed to terminate the tail-pipe
testing program on January 1, 2006, for the nine counties subject to
continued tail-pipe testing of MY 1995 and older vehicles. EPA approved
these changes to North Carolina's I/M program into the SIP on October
30, 2002. See 67 FR 66056.
    In 2012, the NCGA enacted Session Law 2012-199 which required North
Carolina and the Department of Motor Vehicles to change the I/M program
to exempt the three newest MY vehicles with less than 70,000 miles, and
the State subsequently submitted a SIP revision to modify the SIP
accordingly. EPA approved this SIP revision on February 5, 2015. See 80
FR 6455.
    In 2017, the NCGA passed Senate Bill 131, which removed 26 of the
48 counties from the North Carolina I/M program.\5\ On November 17,
2017, DAQ submitted to EPA a request to amend its SIP to remove the 26
counties specified in Senate Bill 131 from the I/M program. This
submittal also included a CAA section 110(l) demonstration providing
support that the removal of the 26 counties from North Carolina's SIP
approved I/M program would not interfere with continued attainment and
maintenance of all the NAAQS or with any other applicable CAA
requirement. EPA approved this SIP revision on September 25, 2018. See
83 FR 48383. In 2019, EPA approved a rolling 20-year timeframe for
vehicle MY coverage into the SIP, replacing a specific year-based
timeframe for coverage. See 84 FR 47889 (September 11, 2019). This
action did not change the counties subject to the I/M program. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The 26 counties removed were Brunswick, Burke, Caldwell,
Carteret, Catawba, Chatham, Cleveland, Craven, Edgecombe, Granville,
Harnett, Haywood, Henderson, Lenoir, Moore, Nash, Orange, Pitt,
Robertson, Rutherford, Stanly, Stokes, Surry, Wayne, Wilkes and
Wilson counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After all the aforementioned changes, the remaining counties in the
North Carolina I/M program currently include Alamance, Buncombe,
Cabarrus, Cumberland, Davidson, Durham, Franklin, Forsyth, Gaston,
Guilford, Johnston, Iredell, Lee, Lincoln, Mecklenburg, New Hanover,
Onslow, Randolph, Rockingham, Rowan, Union, and Wake.

B. NOX SIP Call

    On August 7, 2002, North Carolina submitted a SIP revision to EPA
as a component of its response to the NOX SIP call
requirements. As mentioned previously, the NOX SIP Call
required some states to meet statewide NOX emission
requirements during the ozone season to reduce the amount of ground
level ozone transported across the eastern United States. See 84 FR
8422 (March 8, 2019). In response to the SIP Call, North Carolina's SIP
revision expanded the I/M program from 10 counties to 48, pursuant to
North Carolina Session Law 1999-328, Section 3.1(d), and incorporated
the OBD test procedure.
    The expansion to the I/M program helped reduce certain criteria
pollutants and their precursors, including NOX, by

identifying and requiring the repair of more high-emitting vehicles.
The OBD test helps reduce certain criteria pollutants and their
precursors by checking the vehicles increasingly advanced OBD systems
to monitor the performance of a vehicle's emissions-related components
and provides owners with an early warning of malfunctions through the
dashboard ``check engine'' light (also known as a Malfunction Indicator
Light). By identifying degrading parts early through the OBD system,
owners of these vehicles can perform the type of preventative
maintenance that extends the long-term durability of expensive
components (catalytic converter, fuel injections, oxygen sensors, and
transmissions).
    While the addition of 38 counties to the I/M program pursuant to
Section 3.1(d) of the 1999 Session law was initially ratified to
satisfy the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, it was included in the SIP with
the new OBD testing procedure to support the establishment of emission
credits for North Carolina's NOX budget and trading program.
See 67 FR 66056 (October 30, 2002). On October 30, 2002, EPA approved
the I/M rule revision and North Carolina's use of the I/M program
credits for the NOX SIP call budget and trading program. Id.
The ozone season I/M NOX emissions credit was 914 tons in
2004; 2,078 tons in 2006; and 4,385 tons in 2007 and beyond.
    Subsequent to the NOX SIP Call, a number of federal
rules, as well as North Carolina SIP provisions, have created
significant NOX emission reductions in North Carolina,
including ozone season reductions. For stationary sources, including
large Electric Generating Units (EGUs), one of these federal rules
included the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) in 2005 and its
replacement in 2011, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR).6 7 Consequently, any emissions reduction credits
derived from the three counties' participation in the expanded I/M
program are no longer needed for North Carolina to meet its Statewide
NOX emissions budget.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce
sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX emissions in 28
eastern states, including North Carolina, that contributed to
downwind nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS or the 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS. CAIR was challenged in federal court and
in 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia (D.C. Circuit) remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur. North
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3rd 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
    \7\ In response to the D.C. Circuit's remand of CAIR, EPA
promulgated CSAPR to replace it. CSAPR requires 28 eastern states,
including North Carolina, to limit their statewide emissions of
SO2 and NOX in order to mitigate transported
air pollution impacting other states' ability to attain or maintain
four NAAQS: the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms of
maximum statewide ``budgets'' for emissions of annual SO2
and NOX, and/or ozone-season NOX by each
covered state's large EGUs. The CSAPR state budgets are implemented
in two phases of generally increasing stringency, with Phase I
budgets applying to emissions in 2015 and 2016 and the Phase 2
budgets applying to emissions in 2017 and later years. CSAPR was
challenged in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 12, 2012, it was
vacated and remanded to EPA. The vacatur was subsequently reversed
by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014. EPA v. EME
Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S.Ct. 1584 (2014). This litigation
ultimately delayed implementation of CSAPR for three years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other federal rules that have created significant NOX
emission reductions in the area of mobile-sources include: the Tier 2
vehicle and fuel standards; \8\ nonroad spark ignition engines and
recreational engine standards; heavy-duty gasoline and diesel highway
vehicle standards; \9\ and large nonroad diesel engine standards.\10\
These mobile source measures, coupled with fleet turnover (i.e., the
replacement of older vehicles that predate the standards with newer
vehicles that meet the standards), have resulted in, and continue to
result in, large reductions in NOX emissions over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Tier 2 standards, begun in 2004, continue to
significantly reduce NOX emissions and EPA expects that
these standards will reduce NOX emissions from vehicles
by approximately 74 percent by 2030 (or nearly 3 million tons
annually by 2030). See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015) (citing
EPA, Regulatory Announcement, EPA 420-F-99-051 (December 1999).
    \9\ Also begun in 2004, implementation of this rule is expected
to achieve a 95 percent reduction in NOX emissions from
diesel trucks and buses by 2030. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28,
2015).
    \10\ EPA estimated that compliance with this rule will cut
NOX emissions from non-road diesel engines by up to 90
percent nationwide. See 80 FR 44873, 44876 (July 28, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2002, North Carolina also enacted and subsequently implemented
its Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA), which created system-wide annual
emissions caps on actual emissions of NOX and SO2
from coal-fired power plants within the State, the first of which
became effective in 2007. The CSA required certain coal-fired power
plants in North Carolina to significantly reduce annual NOX
emissions by 189,000 tons (or 77 percent) by 2009 (using a 1998
baseline year). This represented about a one-third reduction of the
NOX emissions from all sources in North Carolina. See 76 FR
36468, 36470 (June 11, 2011).\11\ The CSA's requirement to meet annual
emissions caps and disallow the purchase of NOX credits to
meet the caps led to a reduction of NOX emissions beyond the
requirements of the NOX SIP Call even though the CSA did not
limit emissions only during the ozone season. EPA approved the CSA
emissions caps into North Carolina's SIP on September 26, 2011. See 76
FR 59250.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ North Carolina indicates that the utilities reduced
NOX emissions by 83 percent as of 2017 relative to the
1998 emissions levels. See Letter from Michael A. Abraczinskas,
Director of the Division of Air Quality for the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, dated July 11, 2018. A copy of
this letter is included in the docket for this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina also has its own SIP-approved State provisions that
have helped create significant NOX emission reductions in
North Carolina. The majority of these rules are contained in 15A North
Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02D, Section .1400,
Nitrogen Oxides. These rules contain NOX SIP Call
requirements and work in conjunction with the CSA to reduce
NOX emissions in the State.
    Together, implementation of these federal rules and SIP-approved
state provisions have created significant NOX emissions
reductions since North Carolina's NOX SIP Call emissions
budget was approved into the SIP in 2002. These federal rules and State
provisions have significantly reduced ozone season NOX
emissions from EGUs in particular, resulting in overall emissions
levels well below the original NOX SIP Call budget. This
last point is illustrated in Table 1, which compares the EGU
NOX SIP Call budget to actual emissions in 2007 and 2017
(the attainment base year), as well as 2018 and 2019. Actual EGU
emissions in 2007 and 2017, the attainment base year, were 23 percent
(7,274 tons) and 60 percent (18,906 tons) below the NOX SIP
Call budget for EGUs, respectively. Notably, the entirety of the
emissions reduction credits from the expanded I/M program (and used by
the State in its NOX emissions budget) only totaled 4,385
tons, of which approximately only 1,000 tons was initially needed to
meet the overall budget.

              Table 1--Comparison of Ozone Season NOX SIP Call Budget to Actual Emissions for EGUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2007            2017            2018            2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SIP Call Budget, Tons *.....................          31,451          31,451          31,451          31,451
Actual Emissions, Tons..........................          24,177          12,545          13,046          12,989
Below Budget, Tons..............................           7,274          18,906          18,405          18,462
Below Budget, Percent...........................              23              60              59              59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* From EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's NOX SIP Call submission. See 67 FR 42519 (June 24, 2002).

    Further, the State has provided modeling results showing that
NOX emissions will remain below the NOX SIP Call
budgets after removal of the three counties from the I/M program. Table
2 shows the impact of the estimated ozone season NOX
emissions increases due to the proposed changes to the I/M program.
Despite this increase, EPA expects NOX emissions in 2022 to
continue to be lower than the attainment base year in 2017. This is
further explained in Section III.C, below. As noted above, in 2019, EGU
emissions were 18,462 tons (59 percent) below the NOX SIP
Call budget for EGUs. The proposed change to the I/M program, combined
with other recently approved changes to North Carolina's SIP-approved
I/M program, would reduce the gap between the budget and actual
emissions by 950 tons, or about 5.15 percent, to 17,512 tons below the
NOX SIP Call budget for EGUs based on 2019 EGU emissions.
Thus, based on this EGU-focused analysis, EPA concludes that the ozone
season NOX emissions increase associated with the proposed
change to the expanded I/M program will not interfere with North
Carolina's obligations under the NOX SIP call to meet its
Statewide NOX emissions budget.

Table 2--Impact of NOX Emissions Increases Due to Proposed Changes to I/
        M Program on EGU Reductions and NOX SIP Call I/M Credits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   I/M Emissions increases from I/M program changes      Impact in tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal of 26 counties (previous action)..............               611
Revision to vehicle MY coverage in 22 counties                       311
 (previous action)....................................
Removal of three counties (this proposed action)......                28
                                                       -----------------
    Total NOX Emission Increase.......................               950
Amount NOX EGU emissions below budget in 2019 (From               18,462
 table 1 above).......................................
Emissions increases from I/M program changes..........           (-) 950
Amount below budget in 2019 after increases from I/M              17,512
 changes..............................................
NOX SIP Call Budget...................................            31,451
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of North Carolina's submittal?

A. Impact on the State's NOX SIP Call Obligations

    North Carolina's December 14, 2020, submittal seeks to remove
Onslow, Lee, and Rockingham counties from the I/M program contained in
the SIP. This removal consequently removes reliance on the I/M
reduction credits gained from these three counties' participation in
the I/M program in meeting the State's NOX emissions budget.
North Carolina has indicated that it no longer needs these reduction
credits to meet its obligation under the NOX SIP Call.
    In light of the analysis in Section II.B, above, EPA is proposing
to find that North Carolina's removal of the three counties from the
expanded I/M program contained in its SIP (and the use of I/M emissions
reductions generated from those counties as part of the reduction
credits in the State's NOX emissions budget) will not
interfere with the State's obligations under the NOX SIP
Call to meet its Statewide NOX emissions budget. Subsequent
to the NOX SIP Call, the promulgation and implementation of
a number of federal rules and SIP-approved State provisions, and in
particular those impacting EGUs, have created significant
NOX emissions reductions in the State that are more than
sufficient to offset the I/M reduction credits from Lee, Onslow, and
Rockingham counties to meet its Statewide NOX emissions
budget.

B. North Carolina's Non-Interference Analysis of Removing Three
Counties From the I/M Program

    Section 110(l) of the CAA requires that a revision to the SIP not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. EPA evaluates section 110(l) non-
interference demonstrations on a case-by-case basis considering the
circumstances of each SIP revision. EPA interprets section 110(l) as
applying to all NAAQS that are in effect, including those that have
been promulgated but for which EPA has not yet made designations. The
degree of analysis focused on any particular NAAQS in a non-
interference demonstration varies depending on the nature of the
emissions associated with the proposed SIP revision. There are six
NAAQS established to protect human health and the environment. These
NAAQS are CO, lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone,
particulate matter (PM)--including PM2.5 \12\ and
PM10 \13\, and SO2. Considering modern fuel types
and the science and technology related to emissions from motor
vehicles, EPA does not believe that there would be any changes in
emissions of lead \14\ or

PM10 \15\ resulting from the removal of the I/M program in
Lee, Onslow, and Randolph counties from the North Carolina SIP.
Furthermore, EPA does not believe that SO2 air quality would
be threatened given the mandatory use of ultra-low sulfur (ULSD) diesel
fuel.\16\ Therefore, this section is focused on evaluating air quality
for NO2, ozone, CO, and PM2.5. North Carolina is
in attainment for all NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ PM2.5 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, oftentimes
referred to as ``fine'' particles. Lee, Onslow, and Randolph
counties have never been designated as nonattainment for the
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    \13\ PM10 refers to particles with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers, which includes
PM2.5.
    \14\ On November 12, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised lead NAAQS
of 0.15 microgram per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\). See 73 FR 66964.
EPA designated the entire state of North Carolina as unclassifiable/
attainment for the 2008 lead NAAQS. See 76 FR 72097 (November 22,
2011). As of January 1, 1996, the sale of leaded fuel for use in on-
road motor vehicles was banned. Therefore, removing the I/M program
for Lee, Onslow, and Randolph counties from the North Carolina SIP
will not have any impact on ambient concentrations of lead.
    \15\ On March 15, 1991, EPA completed initial designations for
the PM10 NAAQS. See 56 FR 11101. The current primary and
secondary PM10 NAAQS are each set at 150 [micro]g/m\3\
over a 24-hour average, not to be exceeded more than an average of
once per year over a three-year period. The entire state of North
Carolina has been designated attainment for every PM10
standard. On-road motor vehicles do not emit PM10,
therefore, removing the I/M program for Lee, Onslow, and Randolph
counties from the North Carolina SIP will not have any impact on
ambient concentrations of PM10.
    \16\ On June 22, 2010, EPA revised the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS to 75 parts per billion (ppb) which became effective on August
23, 2010. See 75 FR 35520. On February 25, 2019, based on a review
of the full body of currently available scientific evidence and
exposure/risk information, EPA retained the existing 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS. See 84 FR 9866. All areas in the State
are currently designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the
SO2 NAAQS. In 2006, EPA finalized regulations that began
to phase in a requirement to use ULSD, a diesel fuel with a maximum
of 15 ppm sulfur. Since 2010, EPA's diesel standards have required
that all highway diesel fuel vehicles use ULSD, and all highway
diesel fuel supplied to the market is ULSD. Due to the requirements
to use ULSD under the on-road diesel fuel standards, the amount of
SO2 emitted from on-road vehicles is already low.
Furthermore, the I/M program in North Carolina's SIP is not designed
to reduce emissions of SO2, and the removal of the three
counties from the program will not have any appreciable impact on
ambient concentrations of SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    North Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP revision included a non-
interference demonstration to support the removal of the I/M program in
Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties from North Carolina's SIP-approved
expanded I/M program. This demonstration addresses all NAAQS with a
focus on ozone (through its precursors NOX and VOC) and CO,
the criteria pollutants addressed by I/M programs. I/M programs are not
designed to address lead and SO2 emissions, and
NO2 is captured generally through the same measures that
target NOX impacts.
    Both VOC and NOX emissions contribute to the formation
of ozone. The rate of ozone formation can be limited by either VOCs or
NOX. When an area has high-NOX conditions and
low-VOC conditions, the rate of ozone production is more sensitive to
the number of VOCs and is considered a NOX-rich regime.
Alternatively, when the atmosphere has high-VOC conditions and low-
NOX conditions, the formation of ozone is influenced by a
NOX-limited regime, which means ozone formation is more
sensitive to changes in NOX concentration. In North Carolina
approximately 81 percent of the statewide VOC emissions come from
biogenic or natural sources, which cannot be controlled. As a result,
North Carolina is NOX-limited for ozone formation, meaning
controlling NOX emissions is a more effective way to reduce
the formation of ozone. In the three counties being removed, very few
anthropogenic sources of NOX exist.
    EPA used an emissions inventory comparison to determine whether the
three counties would maintain the ozone and CO NAAQS after removal of
the I/M program. North Carolina provided much of this data, which it
later supplemented with additional data for EPA. This is a long-
standing approach EPA uses to determine whether an area can maintain
the NAAQS and is very similar to the maintenance demonstrations that
support the redesignations of areas from nonattainment to attainment
and the second 10-year maintenance plans. EPA has not required
photochemical modeling or any other modeling analyses to support these
demonstrations. In general, EPA compares future year emissions to
emissions in a base year with an attaining design value.\17\ If the
total future year emissions for the relevant pollutant(s) are less than
the total base year emissions, EPA considers that to be a sufficient
and reasonable demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
because the base year emissions are at a level sufficient to achieve
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Design values are how EPA measures compliance with the
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As mentioned above, North Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP
revision included a non-interference demonstration to support the
State's request to remove Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from
North Carolina's SIP-approved expanded I/M program. This demonstration
includes an evaluation of the impact that the removal of the I/M
program for these counties would have on North Carolina's ability to
attain or maintain any NAAQS in the State.
    For North Carolina's non-interference demonstration, EPA used 2017
as an attainment base year \18\ and compared the total emissions of
NOX, VOC, and CO in 2017 to the total emissions of these
pollutants in 2022, the year when the I/M program in Lee, Onslow and
Rockingham Counties is expected to end. EPA chose 2017 because that
point, nonroad, and non-point data was provided in North Carolina's
December 14, 2020, submission as it was the most complete data
available to the State at the time of the development of the SIP
revision. For consistent comparisons, EPA obtained the 2017 mobile
emissions from the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). Tables 3, 4, and
5 provide a summary for Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties of the
total emissions for NOX, VOC, and CO in 2017; total
emissions for NOX, VOC, and CO in 2022 with the I/M program;
and total emissions for NOX, VOC, and CO in 2022 without the
I/M program. Table 6 shows the three county total for emissions in
2017, in 2022 with I/M and in 2022 without I/M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As shown in Table 1 above, 2017 is one of the years
associated with attaining design values for the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 6 below, the total difference in emissions in
2022 with and without the I/M program in the three counties combined is
a decrease of 0.47 tpd for NOX and an increase of 0.20 tpd
for VOC. However, the total NOX emissions in 2022 without
the I/M program are 11.38 tpd under the total NOX emissions
in 2017, and the total VOC emissions in 2022 without the I/M program is
2.07 tpd below the total VOC emissions in 2017. The difference in
emissions in 2022 with and without the I/M program is an increase of
5.78 tpd for CO. However, the total CO emissions without the I/M
program are 18.66 tpd under the total CO emissions in 2017. Because
2022 total emissions without the I/M program are under total 2017 base
year emissions, it is reasonable to conclude that removal of the I/M
program in Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham Counties will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS. Additionally, as shown in Table
7 below, the highest ozone design value associated with 2017 is 5 ppb
above the most recently available ozone design value for 2019-2021,
thereby providing an additional buffer.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ With respect to ozone transport obligations, EPA determined
through the CSAPR Update that North Carolina does not contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
downwind states for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 81 FR 74504
(October 26, 2016); See also the Revised CSAPR Update, 82 FR 230676
(April 30, 2021) (reiterating EPA's finding that North Carolina does
not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, in any other state with respect to the 2008 ozone
NAAQS). Additionally, EPA determined that emissions from sources in
North Carolina will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS in any
other state. See 86 FR 68413 (December 2, 2021).

                                                       Table 3--Lee County Anthropogenic Emissions
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2017  Emissions          2022 Projected emissions      2022 Projected emissions
                                                               ------------------------------           with I/M                     without I/M
                            Sector                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad........................................................       8.6      0.97      14.2      1.40      1.01     12.91      1.44      1.06     14.31
Point.........................................................       3.0      0.63      0.84      0.12      0.74      0.06      0.12      0.74      0.06
Nonroad.......................................................       1.4      0.40       6.8      0.54      0.35      6.65      0.54      0.35      6.65
Nonpoint......................................................      0.15       2.5       1.3      0.46      2.82      0.08      0.46      2.82      0.08
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................     13.15       4.5     23.14      2.52  [supcare     19.70      2.56      4.97      21.1
                                                                                t]4.93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 1: For tables 3, 4, and 5, tpd emissions for the 2017 baseline NOX and VOC were derived from the 2017NEI_Apr2020 with an apportioned emissions
  factor. Table 6 shows the three county totals. The apportioned emissions factor for each pollutant and data category were developed from EPA's 2016v1
  modeling platform, and what North Carolina relied on for the basis in developing the future year emissions projection as part of the SIP submission.
[supcaret] difference in total emission is due to rounding convention.

                                                     Table 4--Onslow County Anthropogenic Emissions
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2017  Emissions          2022 Projected emissions      2022 Projected emissions
                                                               ------------------------------           with I/M                     without I/M
                            Sector                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad........................................................      3.69      2.18      28.9      2.27      1.92     23.65      2.35      2.02     26.39
Point.........................................................      0.73      0.50       1.3      0.75      0.49      0.09      0.75      0.49      0.09
Nonroad.......................................................      1.29       2.0      15.3      1.64      1.32     12.49      1.64      1.32     12.49
Nonpoint......................................................       0.8       5.4       2.9      0.17      4.36      0.17      0.17      4.36      0.17
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................      6.51     10.08      48.4      4.83      8.09      36.4      4.91      8.19     39.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                   Table 5--Rockingham County Anthropogenic Emissions
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2017  Emissions          2022 Projected emissions      2022 Projected emissions
                                                               ------------------------------           with I/M                     without I/M
                            Sector                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onroad........................................................       3.1       1.9      23.0      2.43      1.86     18.56      2.49      1.92     20.20
Point.........................................................       2.1      3.13       2.4      3.23      1.47      0.88      3.23      1.47      0.88
Nonroad.......................................................      0.58      0.69       8.9      0.90      0.54      8.17      0.90      0.54      8.17
Nonpoint......................................................      0.39      3.13       2.4      0.36      4.27      0.09      0.36      4.27      0.09
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................      6.17      8.85      36.7      6.92      8.14      27.7      6.98      8.20     29.34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                   Table 6--Three County Total Anthropogenic Emissions
                                                                          [tpd]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2017  Emissions          2022 Projected emissions      2022 Projected emissions
                                                               ------------------------------           with I/M                     without I/M
                            Sector                                                           -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO        NOX       VOC       CO
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee...........................................................     13.15       4.5     23.14      2.52      4.93     19.70      2.56      4.97      21.1
Onslow........................................................      6.51     10.08      48.4      4.83      8.09      36.4      4.91      8.19     39.14
Rockingham....................................................      6.17      8.85      36.7      6.92      8.14      27.7      6.98      8.20     29.34
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................................................     25.83     23.43    108.24     14.92     21.16     83.80     14.45     21.36     89.58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i. Non-Interference Analysis for the Ozone NAAQS
    EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 ppm on July
18, 1997. On March 12, 2008, EPA revised both the primary and secondary
NAAQS for ozone to a level of 0.075 ppm to provide increased protection
of public health and the environment. See 73 FR 16435 (March 27, 2008).
On October 26, 2015, EPA published a final rule lowering the level of
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.070 ppm. See 80 FR 65292. The 2015 ozone
NAAQS retains the same general form and averaging time as the 1997
ozone NAAQS and 2008 ozone NAAQS but is set at a more protective level.
Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS
is attained when the 3-year

average of the annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.070
ppm.
    Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties were originally designated
unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and have
continued to attain the standard. On May 21, 2012, EPA designated all
three counties as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. See 77 FR 30088. Finally, on November 6, 2017, EPA
designated the entire state of North Carolina attainment/unclassifiable
for the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 82 FR 54232 (November 6, 2017).
North Carolina continues to maintain attainment designation statewide
for all ozone NAAQS.
    As discussed above, the emissions inventory comparison made in
Tables 3, 4, and 5 above for the ozone precursors (NOX and
VOC) demonstrates that the removal of the I/M program from all three
counties will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS. Table 6 shows the three county totals. Additionally, Table 7
presents recent design values (the measure of compliance with the ozone
NAAQS) that have demonstrated attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS of
0.070 ppm or 70 parts per billion (ppb). For these reasons, EPA
proposes to find that removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties
from the SIP-approved expanded I/M program would not interfere with
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in the State.

                                                     Table 7--Monitor Ozone Design Values (DV) \20\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2013-2015 DV      2014-2016 DV      2015-2017 DV      2016-2018 DV      2017-2019 DV     2018-2020 DV     2019-2021 DV
           Monitor                   (ppb)             (ppb)             (ppb)             (ppb)            (ppb)            (ppb)            (ppb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee County...................  NA..............  62..............  61..............  Shut down *.....  Shut down *....  Shut down *....  Shut down.*
Onslow County................  No monitor......  No monitor......  No monitor......  No monitor......  No monitor.....  No monitor.....  No monitor.
Rockingham County............  64..............  66..............  65..............  63..............  63.............  60.............  60.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Blackstone monitor in Lee County operated from November 2013 to July 2018 and only collected enough data for the two complete DVs. It was a
  special purpose monitoring site and was not required to be part of the Part 58 monitoring network and it was subsequently shut down.

ii. Non-Interference Analysis for the Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS
    Over the course of several years, EPA has reviewed and revised the
PM2.5 NAAQS a number of times. On July 18, 1997, EPA
established an annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations, and a 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
of 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of
24-hour concentrations. See 62 FR 36852. On September 21, 2006, EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ but
revised the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based
again on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. See 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006). On December 14,
2012, EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/
m\3\ but revised the annual primary PM2.5 NAAQS to 12.0
[mu]g/m\3\, based again on a 3-year average of annual mean
PM2.5 concentrations. See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ All design values in this notice of proposed rulemaking are
available on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA promulgated designations for the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 943). Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham
counties were designated unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On November 13, 2009, and on January 15, 2015,
EPA published notices determining that the entire state of North
Carolina was unclassifiable/attainment for the 2006 daily
PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
respectively. See 74 FR 58688 (November 13, 2009) and 80 FR 2206
(January 15, 2013).
    In North Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP revision, the State
concluded that the removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from
the expanded I/M program would not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS. The pollution control
systems for light-duty gasoline vehicles subject to the I/M program are
not designed to reduce emissions for PM2.5; therefore,
removing counties from the program will not have any impact on ambient
concentrations of PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, MOVES2014(b)
modeling results in the State's SIP revision indicate that removing
these three counties from the expanded I/M program would not increase
PM2.5 emissions. For these reasons, EPA proposes to find
that removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the SIP-
approved expanded I/M program would not interfere with maintenance of
the PM2.5 NAAQS in the State.
iii. Non-Interference Analysis for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS
    The 2010 NO2 1-hour standard is set at 100 ppb, based on
the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of
1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The annual standard of 53 ppb is
based on the annual mean concentration. On February 17, 2012, EPA
designated all counties in North Carolina as unclassifiable/attainment
for the 2010 NO2 NAAQS. See 77 FR 9532.
    Based on the technical analysis in North Carolina's December 14,
2020, SIP revision, the projected increase in total anthropogenic
NOX emissions (of which NO2 is a component)
associated with the removal of the three counties from the expanded I/M
program ranges from 0.04 tpd (Lee County) to 0.08 tpd (Onslow County)
in 2022. However, it is important to note that the total NOX
emissions in 2022 without the I/M program in these three counties
decreases by 11.38 tpd from 2017. All NO2 monitors in the
State are measuring below the annual NO2 standard, and all
near road monitors are measuring well below the 1-hour NO2
standard. For these reasons, EPA proposes to find that removal of Lee,
Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/M
program would not interfere with maintenance of the NO2
NAAQS in the State.
iv. Non-Interference Analysis for the CO NAAQS
    EPA promulgated the CO NAAQS in 1971 and has retained the primary
standards since its last review of the standard in 2011. The primary
NAAQS for CO include: (1) an 8-hour standard of 9.0 ppm, measured using
the annual second highest 8-hour concentration for two consecutive
years as the design value; and (2) a 1-hour average of 35 ppm, using
the second highest 1-hour average within a given year. The three
counties subject to this proposed action have always been designated as
unclassifiable/attainment for the CO NAAQS.
    As discussed in Section III.B above, the emissions inventory
comparison

made in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 above for CO demonstrates that the
removal of the I/M program from all three counties will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the CO NAAQS. In North Carolina's
December 14, 2020, SIP revision, the State concluded that the removal
of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the expanded I/M program
would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
MOVES2014(b) mobile emissions modeling results show a slight increase
in CO emissions for each of the three counties of 1.4 tpd (Lee County),
2.74 tpd (Onslow County), and 1.64 tpd (Rockingham County)--5.78 tpd
total for all three counties when comparing emissions with and without
the I/M program in 2022. This increase is not expected to interfere
with continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in any of the three counties
or adjacent counties, particularly because the three-county total CO
emissions in 2022 without I/M is 18.66 tpd less than the total CO
emissions in 2017. Furthermore, statewide, the current ambient air
quality levels for CO are less than 20 percent of the CO NAAQS. For
these reasons, EPA proposes to find that removal of Lee, Onslow, and
Rockingham counties from the SIP-approved I/M program would not
interfere with maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the State.

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to approve North
Carolina's December 14, 2020, SIP revision. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to approve the removal of Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham
counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/M program. Additionally, EPA
is proposing to find that North Carolina's removal of Lee, Onslow, and
Rockingham counties from the SIP-approved expanded I/M program (and the
removal of reliance on the additional I/M emissions reductions
generated for the NOX Budget and Allowance Trading Program)
will not interfere with the State's obligations under the
NOX SIP Call to meet its Statewide NOX emissions
budget. In addition, EPA is also proposing to find that the removal of
Lee, Onslow, and Rockingham counties from the SIP-approved--I/M program
will not interfere with continued attainment or maintenance of any
applicable NAAQS or with any other applicable requirement of the CAA,
and that North Carolina has satisfied the requirements of section
110(l) of the CAA.

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 Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 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 they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely proposes
to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: June 13, 2022.
Daniel Blackman,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2022-13163 Filed 6-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7640-7642]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3249]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66325; File No. SR-BYX-2012-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Y-Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Add
Reference to an Additional Variation of an Existing Routing Strategy

February 6, 2012.
    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 February 1, 2012, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BYX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend BYX Rule 11.13(a)(3)(G) to add reference to a variation of the
TRIM routing strategy.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to add reference in Rule
11.13(a)(3)(G) to a variation of the TRIM routing strategy, to be
identified as TRIM2. The TRIM routing strategy checks the System for
available shares and then routes to destinations on the System routing
table. The TRIM routing strategy is focused on seeking execution of
orders while minimizing execution costs by routing to certain low cost
execution venues on the Exchange's System routing table. No changes to
the functionality of the TRIM routing strategy are proposed by this
filing. The Exchange, however, is proposing to offer an additional
variation for TRIM routing, TRIM2, which will offer a different routing
table to be used pursuant to the TRIM routing strategy. Specifically,
TRIM2 will route to fewer venues than the full list of TRIM routing
venues.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that
are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular,
with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\3\ In particular, the
proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\
because it would promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and
the public interest. The proposed change to introduce an additional
variation of an existing routing strategy will provide market
participants with greater flexibility in routing orders consistent with
Regulation NMS without developing complicated order routing strategies
on their own.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (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 the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \6\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\7\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \8\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked the
Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal may
become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay will allow market participants and
their customers to benefit from the greater flexibility in routing
their orders and minimize their trading costs without further delay.
The Exchange notes that the introduction of the additional optional
variation of the TRIM routing strategy will not require any systems
changes by Exchange Users that would necessitate a delay, as selection
of the TRIM2 variation is entirely optional and Exchange Users will not
be affected by the change unless they select to use the newly offered
variation. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal as
operative upon filing.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to
the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing
of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by
the Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, 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 summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BYX-2012-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2012-004. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BYX-2012-004 and should be
submitted on or before March 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-3249 Filed 2-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P