[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46731-46734]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16859]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78301; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-75]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Extend Pilot
Program Through January 18, 2017

July 12, 2016.
    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 July 12, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 proposes to amend Exchange Rule 1080(n), Price
Improvement XL (``PIXL\SM\''), to extend, through January 18, 2017, a
pilot program (the ``pilot'') concerning (i) the early conclusion of
the PIXL Auction (as described below), and (ii) permitting orders of
fewer than 50 contracts into the PIXL Auction. The current pilot is
scheduled to expire July 18, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The extension of the pilot relates to several subparagraphs
of Rule 1080(n) in respect of PIXL and Complex Order PIXL, as
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new text is italicized. Deleted text is [bracketed].
* * * * *

NASDAQ PHLX LLC Rules

Options Rules

Rule 1080. Phlx XL and Phlx XL II

    (a)-(m) No change.
    (n) Price Improvement XL (``PIXL'')
    A member may electronically submit for execution an order it
represents as agent on behalf of a public customer, broker-dealer, or
any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against principal interest or against
any other order (except as provided in sub-paragraph (n)(i)(F) below)
it represents as agent (an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits
the PIXL Order for electronic execution into the PIXL Auction
(``Auction'') pursuant to this Rule. The contract size specified in
Rule 1080(n) as applicable to PIXL Orders shall apply to Mini Options.
    (i) Auction Eligibility Requirements. All options traded on the
Exchange are eligible for PIXL. A member (the ``Initiating Member'')
may initiate an Auction provided all of the following are met:
    (A) No change.
    (B) No change.
    (C) If the PIXL Order is a Complex Order and of a conforming ratio,
as defined in Commentary .08(a)(i) and (a)(ix) to Rule 1080, the
Initiating Member must stop the entire PIXL order at a price that is
better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i) available on the
Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order book size; and (ii)
achievable from the best Phlx bids and offers for the individual
options (an ``improved net price''), provided in either case that such
price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit price. Complex
Orders consisting of a ratio other than a conforming ratio will not be
accepted. This sub-paragraph (C) shall apply to all Complex Orders
submitted into PIXL. This sub-paragraph (C), where applied to Complex
Orders where the smallest leg is less than 50 contracts in size, shall
be effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire [July 18,
2016]January 18, 2017.

    (D)-(G) No change.
    (ii) Auction Process. Only one Auction may be conducted at a time
in any given series or strategy. Once commenced, an Auction may not be
cancelled and shall proceed as follows:
    (A) No change.
    (B) Conclusion of Auction. The PIXL Auction shall conclude at the
earlier to occur of (1) through (4) below, with the PIXL Order
executing pursuant to paragraph (C)(1) through (3) below.
    (1)-(4) No change.
    (5) Sub-paragraphs (B)(2), (B)(3) and (B)(4) above shall be
effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire [July 18, 2016]January
18, 2017.
    (C) No change.
    (D) An unrelated market or marketable limit order (against the
PBBO) on the opposite side of the market from the PIXL Order received
during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and will
execute against interest outside of the Auction. In the case of a
Complex PIXL Auction, an unrelated market or marketable limit Complex
Order on the opposite side of the market from the Complex PIXL Order as
well as orders for the individual components of the Complex Order
received during the Auction will not cause the Auction to end early and
will execute against interest outside of the Auction. If contracts
remain from such unrelated order at the time the Auction ends, they
will be considered for participation in the order allocation process
described in sub-paragraph (E) below. This sub-paragraph shall be
effective for a pilot period scheduled to expire on [July 18,
2016]January 18, 2017.
    (E)-(J) No change.
    (iii)-(vi) No change.
    (vii) Initially, and for at least a Pilot Period expiring on [July
18, 2016] January 18, 2017, there will be no minimum size requirement
for orders to be eligible for the Auction. During this Pilot Period,
the Exchange will submit certain data, periodically as required by the
Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things,
there is meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is
an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the
Auction mechanism. Any raw data which is submitted to the Commission
will be provided on a confidential basis.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to extend the pilot
through January 18, 2017.
Background
    The Exchange adopted PIXL in October 2010 as a price-improvement
mechanism on the Exchange.\4\ PIXL is a component of the Exchange's
fully automated options trading system, PHLX XL[supreg] that allows an
Exchange member (an ``Initiating Member'') to electronically submit for
execution an order it represents as agent on behalf of a public
customer, broker dealer, or any other entity (``PIXL Order'') against
principal interest or against any other order it represents as agent
(an ``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the PIXL Order for
electronic execution into the PIXL Auction (``Auction'') pursuant to
the Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63027 (October 1,
2010), 75 FR 62160 (October 7, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-108) (Order
Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change Relating to a Proposed
Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL); 65043 (August 5,
2011), 76 FR 49824 (August 11, 2011) (SR-Phlx-2011-104) (Extending
Pilot for Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL); 67399
(July 11, 2012), 77 FR 42048 (July 17, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-94)
(Extending Pilot for Price Improvement System, Price Improvement
XL); 69845 (June 25, 2013), 78 FR 39429 (July 1, 2013) (SR-Phlx-
2013-46) (Order Granting Approval To Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, Regarding Complex Order PIXL); 69989
(July 16, 2013), 78 FR 43950 (July 22, 2013) (SR-Phlx-2013-74)
(Extending Pilot for Price Improvement System, Price Improvement
XL); 72619 (July 16, 2014), 79 FR 42613 (July 22, 2014) (Extending
Pilot for Price Improvement System, Price Improvement XL); and 75470
(July 16, 2015) 80 FR 43509 (July 22, 2015) (Amending Exchange Rule
1080(n), Price Improvement XL (``PIXL\SM\'') to Extend, Until July
18, 2016, a Pilot Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by submitting a
PIXL Order, which is not a Complex Order, in one of three ways:
     First, the Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying a single price at which it seeks to execute the PIXL Order
(a ``stop price'').
     Second, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to automatically match as principal or as
agent on behalf of an Initiating Order the price and size of all
trading interest and responses to the PIXL Auction Notification
(``PAN,'' as described below) (``auto-match''), in which case the PIXL
Order will be stopped at the better of the National Best Bid/Offer
(``NBBO'') or the Reference BBO \5\ on the Initiating Order side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``Reference BBO'' is defined as the ``internal market
BBO''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Third, an Initiating Member could submit a PIXL Order
specifying that it is willing to either: (i) Stop the entire order at a
single stop price and auto-match PAN responses, as described below,
together with trading interest, at a price or prices that improve the
stop price to a specified price above or below which the Initiating
Member will not trade (a ``Not Worse Than'' or ``NWT'' price); (ii)
stop the entire order at a single stop price and auto-match all PAN
responses and trading interest at or better than the stop price; or
(iii) stop the entire order at the better of the NBBO or Reference BBO
on the Initiating Order side, and auto-match PAN responses and trading
interest at a price or prices that improve the stop price up to the NWT
price. In all cases, if the PHLX Best Bid/Offer (``PBBO'') on the same
side of the market as the PIXL Order represents a limit order on the
book, the stop price must be at least one minimum price improvement
increment better than the booked limit order's limit price.
    In addition, an Initiating Member may initiate a PIXL Auction by
submitting a Complex Order which is of a conforming ratio, as defined
in Commentary .08(a)(i) and (a)(ix) to Rule 1080. When submitting a
Complex Order, the Initiating Member must stop the PIXL order at a
price that is better than the best net price (debit or credit) (i)
available on the Complex Order book regardless of the Complex Order
book size; and (ii) achievable from the best PHLX bids and offers for
the individual options (an ``improved net price''), provided in either
case that such price is equal to or better than the PIXL Order's limit
price.
    After the PIXL Order is entered, a PAN is broadcast and a blind
Auction ensues for a period of time as determined by the Exchange and
announced on the Nasdaq Trader Web site. The Auction period will be no
less than one hundred milliseconds and no more than one second. Anyone
may respond to the PAN by sending orders or quotes. At the conclusion
of the

Auction, the PIXL Order will be allocated at the best price(s).
    Once the Initiating Member has submitted a PIXL Order for
processing, such PIXL Order may not be modified or cancelled. Under any
of the above circumstances, the Initiating Member's stop price or NWT
price may be improved to the benefit of the PIXL Order during the
Auction, but may not be cancelled. Under no circumstances will the
Initiating Member receive an allocation percentage, at the final price
point, of more than 50% with one competing quote, order or PAN response
or 40% with multiple competing quotes, orders or PAN responses, when
competing quotes, orders or PAN responses have contracts available for
execution.
    After a PIXL Order has been submitted, a member organization
submitting the order has no ability to control the timing of the
execution. The execution is carried out by the Exchange's PHLX XL
automated options trading system and pricing is determined solely by
the other orders and quotes that are present in the Auction.
The Pilot
    Three components of the PIXL system were approved by the Commission
on a pilot basis: (1) Paragraphs (n)(i)(A), (n)(i)(B), and (n)(i)(C) of
Rule 1080, relating to auction eligibility requirements; (2) paragraphs
(n)(ii)(B)(5) and (n)(ii)(D) of Rule 1080, relating to the early
conclusion of the PIXL Auction; and (3) paragraph (n)(vii) of Rule
1080, stating that there shall be no minimum size requirement of orders
entered into PIXL. The pilot was extended until July 18, 2016.\6\ The
Exchange notes that during the pilot period it has been required to
submit, and has been submitting, certain data periodically as required
by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other
things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders and that
there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange
outside of the Auction mechanism.\7\ Further, the Exchange provided
certain additional data requested by the Commission regarding trading
in the PIXL Auction for the six (6) month period from January 1, 2015
through June 30, 2015. The Exchange represented that it would make
publicly available a summary of the data provided to the Commission.
The Exchange continues to believe that there remains meaningful
competition for all size orders and that there is an active and liquid
market functioning on the Exchange outside of the PIXL Auction and that
there is significant price improvement for orders entered into the PIXL
Auction. The Exchange believes the additional data will substantiate
the Exchange's belief and provide further evidence in support of
permanent approval of the PIXL Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See supra note 4.
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 1080(n)(vii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot through January 18, 2017.
The Exchange believes that the proposed extension should afford the
Commission additional time to evaluate the pilot.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that it is designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and is not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers, or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act
matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \10\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that PIXL, including the rules
to which the pilot applies, results in increased liquidity available at
improved prices, with competitive final pricing out of the Initiating
Member's complete control. The Exchange believes that PIXL promotes and
fosters competition and affords the opportunity for price improvement
to more options contracts. The extension proposal allows additional
time for the Commission to evaluate the pilot.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal extends existing
pilots that apply to all Exchange members, and enables the Exchange to
be competitive in respect of other option exchanges that have similar
programs.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the 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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requested
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange
noted that the pilot is scheduled to expire July 18, 2016. According to
the Exchange, a waiver of the operative delay will allow uninterrupted
application of the PIXL pilot and thereby ensure fair competition with
other exchanges that have similar programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the PIXL pilot to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding any potential investor confusion that could result from a
temporary interruption in the pilot. Therefore, the Commission

designates the proposed rule change to be operative on July 18,
2016.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2016-75 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2016-75. 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-Phlx-2016-75 and should be
submitted on or before August 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-16859 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65646-65651]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26681]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0781; FRL-9746-7]

Determination of Attainment for the Yuba City-Marysville
Nonattainment Area for the 2006 Fine Particle Standard; California;
Determination Regarding Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to determine that the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour fine
particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS). This proposed determination is based upon complete, quality-
assured, and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that this
area has monitored attainment of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS based on the 2009-2011 monitoring period. EPA is further
proposing that, if EPA finalizes this determination of attainment, the
requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration,
together with reasonably available control measures (RACM), a
reasonable further progress (RFP) plan, and contingency measures for
failure to meet RFP and attainment deadlines shall be suspended for so
long as the area continues to attain the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 29,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2012-0781 by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal, at www.regulations.gov, please
follow the on-line instructions;
    2. Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
    3. Mail or delivery to John Ungvarsky, Air Planning Office, AIR-2,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available at either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Ungvarsky,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, we mean EPA. We are providing the following
outline to aid in locating information in this proposal.

Table of Contents

I. What determination is EPA making?
II. What is the background for this action?
    A. PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas
    C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?
    A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations
    B. Evaluation of Current Attainment
IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?
    A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS
    B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy
V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What determination is EPA making?

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area has clean data for the 2006 24-hour NAAQS for fine
particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers in diameter, PM2.5). This determination is based
upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring
data showing the area has monitored attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS based on 2009-2011 monitoring data. Preliminary
data in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2012 indicate that the area
continues to attain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on this
determination, we are also proposing to suspend the obligations on the
State of California to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions related to attainment of this standard for the Yuba City-
Marysville

nonattainment area for as long as the area continues to attain the
standard.

II. What is the background for this action?

A. PM2.5 NAAQS

    Under section 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), EPA has
established national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or
``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants (referred to as
``criteria pollutants'') and conducts periodic reviews of the NAAQS to
determine whether they should be revised or whether new NAAQS should be
established.
    On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the NAAQS for particulate matter to
add new standards for PM2.5, using PM2.5 as the
indicator for the pollutant. EPA established primary and secondary \1\
annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). The
annual standard was set at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and the 24-hour standard was set at 65 [mu]g/m\3\,
based on the 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
PM2.5 concentrations at each population-oriented monitor
within an area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For a given air pollutant, ``primary'' national ambient air
quality standards are those determined by EPA as requisite to
protect the public health, and ``secondary'' standards are those
determined by EPA as requisite to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the
presence of such air pollutant in the ambient air. See CAA section
109(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the level of the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS to 35 [mu]g/m\3\, based on a 3-year average
of the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations. EPA also retained the
1997 annual PM2.5 standard at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\ based on a 3-
year average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations, but with
tighter constraints on the spatial averaging criteria.

B. Designation of PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas

    Effective December 14, 2009, EPA established the initial air
quality designations for most areas in the United States for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. See 74 FR 58688; (November 13, 2009).
Among the various areas designated in 2009, EPA designated the Yuba
City-Marysville \2\ area in California as nonattainment for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.\3\ The boundaries for this area are
described in 40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area
includes Sutter County and the southwestern two-thirds of Yuba
County. This nonattainment area lies within the Sacramento Valley
Air Basin and lies between the Chico PM2.5 nonattainment
area to the north and the Sacramento PM2.5 nonattainment
area to the south.
    \3\ With respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS, this area
is designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within three years of the effective date of designations, states
with areas designated as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS are required to submit SIP revisions that, among other elements,
provide for implementation of reasonably available control measures
(RACM), reasonable further progress (RFP), attainment of the standard
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than five years from the
nonattainment designation (in this instance, no later than December 14,
2014), as well as contingency measures. See CAA section 172(a)(2),
172(c)(1), 172(c)(2), and 172(c)(9). Prior to the due date for
submittal of these SIP revisions, the State of California requested
that EPA make determinations that the Yuba City-Marysville \4\
nonattainment area has attained the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS and
that attainment-related SIP submittal requirements are not applicable
for as long as the area continues to attain the standard. Today's
proposal responds to the State's request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On June 8, 2010, James Goldstene, Executive Officer of the
California Air Resources Board, submitted a request to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, to find the
Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area had
attained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. How does EPA make attainment determinations?

    A determination of whether an area's air quality currently meets
the PM2.5 NAAQS is generally based upon the most recent
three years of complete, quality-assured data gathered at established
State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) in a nonattainment area
and entered into the AQS database. Data from air monitors operated by
state/local agencies in compliance with EPA monitoring requirements
must be submitted to AQS. Monitoring agencies annually certify that
these data are accurate to the best of their knowledge. Accordingly,
EPA relies primarily on data in AQS when determining the attainment
status of areas. See 40 CFR 50.13; 40 CFR part 50, appendix L; 40 CFR
part 53; 40 CFR part 58, and 40 CFR part 58, appendices A, C, D, and E.
All data are reviewed to determine the area's air quality status in
accordance with 40 CFR part 50, appendix N.
    Under EPA regulations in 40 CFR part 50, section 50.13 and in
accordance with appendix N, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard
is met when the design value is less than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\
(based on the rounding convention in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N) at
each monitoring site within the area.\5\ The PM2.5 24-hour
average is considered valid when 75 percent of the hourly averages for
the 24-hour period are available. Data completeness requirements for a
given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling
days for each quarter have valid data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The PM2.5 24-hour standard design value is the 3-
year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values
recorded at each monitoring site [see 40 CFR part 50, appendix N,
section 1.0(c)], and the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when
the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less
than or equal to 35 [mu]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of the relevant air quality data?

A. Monitoring Network and Data Considerations

    The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local Air Pollution
Control Districts and Air Quality Management Districts (``Districts'')
operate ambient monitoring stations throughout the State. CARB is the
lead monitoring agency in the Primary Quality Assurance Organization
\6\ (PQAO) that includes all the monitoring agencies in the State with
a few exceptions.\7\ CARB is responsible for monitoring ambient air
quality within the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area. In
addition, CARB oversees the quality assurance of all data collected
within the CARB PQAO. CARB submits annual monitoring network plans to
EPA that describe the monitoring sites CARB operates. These plans
discuss the status of the air monitoring network, as required under 40
CFR part 58.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Primary quality assurance organization means a monitoring
organization or other organization that is responsible for a set of
stations that monitor the same pollutant and for which data quality
assessments can be pooled (40 CFR 58.1).
    \7\ The Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, and the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District are each designated as the PQAO for their
respective ambient air monitoring programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2007, EPA has regularly reviewed these annual plans for
compliance with the applicable reporting requirements in 40 CFR part
58. With respect to PM2.5, EPA has found that CARB's network
plans meet the applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 58. See EPA
letters to CARB approving its annual network plans for years 2009,
2010, and 2011.\8\ EPA also

concluded \9\ from its Technical System Audit of the CARB PQAO
(conducted during the summer of 2007) that the ambient air monitoring
network operated by CARB currently meets or exceeds the requirements
for the minimum number of SLAMS for PM2.5 in the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area. Also, CARB annually certifies that the
data it submits to AQS are complete and quality-assured.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Joe Lapka, Acting Manager, Air Quality Analysis
Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB (November
24, 2009) (approving CARB's ``2009 Annual Monitoring Network Report
for Small Districts in California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin,
Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen
Magliano, Chief, Air Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical
Support Division, CARB (October 29, 2010) (approving CARB's ``2010
Annual Monitoring Network Plan for the Small Districts in
California''); Letter from Matthew Lakin, Manager, Air Quality
Analysis Office, U.S. EPA Region IX, to Karen Magliano, Chief, Air
Quality Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB
(November 1, 2011) (approving CARB's ``2011 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan for the Small Districts in California'').
    \9\ See letter from Deborah Jordan, Director, Air Division, U.S.
EPA Region IX, to James Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB,
transmitting ''Technical System Audit of the California
Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board: 2007,'' with
enclosure, August 18, 2008.
    \10\ See, e.g., letter from Karen Magliano, Chief, Air Quality
Data Branch, Planning and Technical Support Division, CARB, to Jared
Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region IX, certifying
calendar year 2011 ambient air quality data and quality assurance
data, May 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There was one PM2.5 SLAMS operating during the 2009-2011
period in the Yuba City-Marysville PM2.5 nonattainment area.
The site is operated by CARB and has been monitoring PM2.5
concentrations since 1999. EPA defines specific monitoring site types
and spatial scales of representativeness to characterize the nature and
location of required monitors. With respect to the Yuba City-Marysville
site, the spatial scale is neighborhood scale,\11\ and the monitoring
objective (site type) is population exposure.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In this context, ``neighborhood'' spatial scale defines
concentrations within some extended area of the city that has
relatively uniform land use with dimensions in the 0.5 to 4.0
kilometers range. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 1.2.
    \12\ See CARB's 2011 Annual Network Plan Report (June, 2011);
U.S. EPA Air Quality System, Monitor Description Report, September
14, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the requirements contained in 40 CFR part 50, we
have reviewed the quality-assured, and certified PM2.5
ambient air monitoring data as recorded in AQS for the applicable
monitoring period collected at the monitoring site in the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area and have found the data to be complete.

B. Evaluation of Current Attainment

    EPA's evaluation of whether the Yuba City-Marysville
PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is based on our review of the monitoring data
and takes into account the adequacy \13\ of the PM2.5
monitoring network in the nonattainment area and the reliability of the
data collected by the network as discussed in the previous section of
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 shows the PM2.5 design value for the Yuba City-
Marysville nonattainment area monitor based on ambient air quality
monitoring data for the most recent complete three-year period (2009-
2011). The data show that the design value for the 2009-2011 period was
equal to or less than 35 [mu]g/m\3\ at the monitor. Therefore, we are
proposing to determine, based on the complete, quality-assured data for
2009-2011, that the Yuba City-Marysville area has attained the 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 standard. Preliminary data available in AQS for
2012 indicate that the area continues to attain the standard.

                    Table 1--2009-2011 24-Hour PM2.5 Monitoring Site and Design Value for the Yuba City-Marysville Nonattainment Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        AQS site                 98th Percentile ([mu]g/m\3\)               2009-2011
                         Monitoring site                             identification  ---------------------------------------------------   design value
                                                                          No.               2009             2010             2011         ([mu]g/m\3\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuba City-Marysville.............................................       06-101-0003             27.5             17.1             37.1               27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Design Value Report, August 31, 2012 (in the docket to this proposed action).

IV. How does EPA's Clean Data Policy apply to this action?

A. Application of EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS

    In April 2007, EPA issued its PM2.5 Implementation Rule
for the 1997 PM2.5 standard. 72 FR 20586; (April 25, 2007).
In March, 2012, EPA published implementation guidance for the 2006
PM2.5 standard. See Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
``Implementation Guidance for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)''
(March 2, 2012). In that guidance, EPA stated its view ``that the
overall framework and policy approach of the 2007 PM2.5
Implementation Rule continues to provide effective and appropriate
guidance on the EPA's interpretation of the general statutory
requirements that states should address in their SIPs. In general, the
EPA believes that the interpretations of the statute in the framework
of the 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule are relevant to the
statutory requirements for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS * *
*.'' Id., page 1. With respect to the statutory provisions applicable
to 2006 PM2.5 implementation, the guidance emphasized that
``EPA outlined its interpretation of many of these provisions in the
2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule. In addition to regulatory
provisions, the EPA provided substantial general guidance for
attainment plans for PM2.5 in the preamble to the final the
[sic] 2007 PM2.5 Implementation Rule.'' Id., page 2. In
keeping with the principles set forth in the guidance, and with respect
to the effect of a determination of attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 standard, EPA is applying the same interpretation with
respect to the implications of clean data determinations that it set
forth in the preamble to the 1997 PM2.5 standard and in the
regulation that embodies this interpretation. 40 CFR 51.1004(c).\14\
EPA has long applied this interpretation in regulations and individual
rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone standards, the
PM-10 standard, and the lead standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ While EPA recognizes that 40 CFR 51.1004(c) does not itself
expressly apply to the 2006 PM2.5 standard, the statutory
interpretation that it embodies is identical and is applicable to
both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. History and Basis of EPA's Clean Data Policy

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA promulgated
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble) 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). In 1995, based on the interpretation of CAA sections 171 and
172, and section 182 in the General Preamble, EPA set forth what has

become known as its ``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
See Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (May 10,
1995). In 2004, EPA indicated its intention to extend the Clean Data
Policy to the PM2.5 NAAQS. See Memorandum from Steve Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ``Clean
Data Policy for the Fine Particle National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' (December 14, 2004).
    Since 1995, EPA has applied its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in many rulemakings, suspending certain attainment-related
planning requirements for individual areas, based on a determination of
attainment. See 60 FR 36723 (July 18, 1995) (Salt Lake and Davis
Counties, Utah, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 20458 (May 7, 1996) (Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain, Ohio, 1-hour ozone); 61 FR 31832 (June 21, 1996) (Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1-hour ozone); 65 FR 37879 (June 19, 2000)
(Cincinnati-Hamilton, Ohio-Kentucky, 1-hour ozone); 66 FR 53094
(October 19, 2001) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1-hour
ozone); 68 FR 25418 (May 12, 2003) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1-
hour ozone); 69 FR 21717 (April 22, 2004) (San Francisco Bay Area,
California, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 6570 (February 10, 2010) (Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, 1-hour ozone); 75 FR 27944 (May 19, 2010) (Coso Junction,
California, PM10).
    EPA also incorporated its interpretation under the Clean Data
Policy in several implementation rules. See Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule, 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007); Final Rule To
Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase
2, 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) upheld EPA's rule embodying
the Clean Data Policy for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. NRDC v. EPA,
571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Other courts have reviewed and
considered individual rulemakings applying EPA's Clean Data Policy, and
have consistently upheld them in every case. Sierra Club v. EPA, 99
F.3d 1551 (10th Cir. 1996); Sierra Club v. EPA, 375 F.3d 537 (7th Cir.
2004); Our Children's Earth Foundation v. EPA, No. 04-73032 (9th Cir.
June 28, 2005 (Memorandum Opinion)), Latino Issues Forum v. EPA, Nos.
06-75831 and 08-71238 (9th Cir. March 2, 2009 (Memorandum Opinion)).
    EPA sets forth below a brief explanation of the statutory
interpretations in the Clean Data Policy. EPA also incorporates the
discussions of its interpretation set forth in prior rulemakings,
including the 1997 PM2.5 implementation rulemaking. See 72
FR 20586, at 20603-20605 (April 25, 2007). See also 75 FR 31288 (June
3, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR 62470
(October 12, 2010) (Knoxville, Tennessee, 1997 8-hour ozone); 75 FR
53219 (August 31, 2010) (Greater Connecticut Area, 1997 8-hour ozone);
75 FR 54778 (September 9, 2010) (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 75 FR 64949 (October 21, 2010) (Providence, Rhode Island, 1997
8-hour ozone); 76 FR 11080 (March 1, 2011) (Milwaukee-Racine and
Sheboygan Areas, Wisconsin, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76 FR 31237 (May 31,
2011) (Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania, 1997 8-hour ozone); 76
FR 33647 (June 9, 2011) (St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 1997 8-hour
ozone); 76 FR 70656 (November 15, 2011) (Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill,
North Carolina-South Carolina, 1997 8-hour ozone); 77 FR 31496 (May 29,
2012) (Boston-Lawrence-Worchester, Massachusetts, 1997 8-hour ozone).
See also, 75 FR 56 (January 4, 2010) (Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High
Point, North Carolina, 1997 PM2.5); 75 FR 230 (January 5,
2010) (Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, North Carolina, 1997
PM2.5); 76 FR 12860 (March 9, 2011) (Louisville, Kentucky-
Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 18650 (April 5, 2011) (Rome,
Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 31239 (May 31, 2011)
(Chattanooga, Tennessee-Georgia-Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
31858 (June 2, 2011) (Macon, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
36873 (June 23, 2011) (Atlanta, Georgia, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR
38023 (June 29, 2011) (Birmingham, Alabama, 1997 PM2.5); 76
FR 55542 (September 7, 2011) (Huntington-Ashland, West Virginia-
Kentucky-Ohio, 1997 PM2.5); 76 FR 60373 (September 29, 2011)
(Cincinnati, Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana, 1997 PM2.5); 77 FR 18922
(March 29, 2012) (Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle-York, Allentown,
Johnstown and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1997 PM2.5).
    The Clean Data Policy represents EPA's interpretation that certain
requirements of subpart 1 of part D of the Act are by their terms not
applicable to areas that are currently attaining the NAAQS.\15\ As
explained below, the specific requirements that are inapplicable to an
area attaining the standard are the requirements to submit a SIP that
provides for: attainment of the NAAQS; implementation of all reasonably
available control measures; reasonable further progress (RFP); and
implementation of contingency measures for failure to meet deadlines
for RFP and attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This discussion refers to subpart 1 because subpart 1
contains the requirements relating to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(1), the requirement for an attainment
demonstration, provides in relevant part that SIPs ``shall provide for
attainment of the [NAAQS].'' EPA has interpreted this requirement as
not applying to areas that have already attained the standard. If an
area has attained the standard, there is no need to submit a plan
demonstrating how the area will reach attainment. In the General
Preamble (57 FR 13564), EPA stated that no other measures to provide
for attainment would be needed by areas seeking redesignation to
attainment since ``attainment will have been reached.'' See also
Memorandum from John Calcagni, ``Procedures for Processing Requests to
Redesignate Areas to Attainment,'' (September 4, 1992), at page 6.
    A component of the attainment plan specified under section
172(c)(1) is the requirement to provide for ``the implementation of all
reasonably available control measures as expeditiously as practicable''
(RACM). Since RACM is an element of the attainment demonstration, see
General Preamble (57 FR 13560), for the same reason the attainment
demonstration no longer applies by its own terms, RACM also no longer
applies to areas that EPA has determined have clean air. Furthermore,
EPA has consistently interpreted this provision to require only
implementation of such potential RACM measures that could advance
attainment.\16\ Thus, where an area is already attaining the standard,
no additional RACM measures are required. EPA's interpretation that the
statute requires only implementation of the RACM measures that would
advance attainment was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit (Sierra Club v. EPA, 314 F.3d 735, 743-745, 5th Cir.
2002) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d 155, 162-163, D.C. Cir. 2002). See also
the final rulemakings for Pittsburgh-Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania,

66 FR 53096 (October 19, 2001) and St. Louis, Missouri-Illinois, 68 FR
25418 (May 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ This interpretation was adopted in the General Preamble,
see 57 FR 13498, and has been upheld as applied to the Clean Data
Policy, as well as to nonattainment SIP submissions. See NRDC v.
EPA, 571 F.3d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.3d
155 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAA section 172(c)(2) provides that SIP provisions in nonattainment
areas must require ``reasonable further progress.'' The term
``reasonable further progress'' is defined in section 171(1) as ``such
annual incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air
pollutant as are required by this part or may reasonably be required by
the Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the
applicable NAAQS by the applicable date.'' Thus, by definition, the
``reasonable further progress'' provision under subpart 1 requires only
such reductions in emissions as are necessary to attain the NAAQS. If
an area has attained the NAAQS, the purpose of the RFP requirement has
been fulfilled, and since the area has already attained, showing that
the State will make RFP towards attainment ``[has] no meaning at that
point.'' General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16, 1992).
    CAA section 172(c)(9) provides that SIPs in nonattainment areas
``shall provide for the implementation of specific measures to be
undertaken if the area fails to make reasonable further progress, or to
attain the [NAAQS] by the attainment date applicable under this part.
Such measures shall be included in the plan revision as contingency
measures to take effect in any such case without further action by the
State or [EPA].'' This contingency measure requirement is inextricably
tied to the reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration
requirements. Contingency measures are implemented if reasonable
further progress targets are not achieved, or if attainment is not
realized by the attainment date. Where an area has already achieved
attainment, it has no need to rely on contingency measures to come into
attainment or to make further progress to attainment. As EPA stated in
the General Preamble: ``The section 172(c)(9) requirements for
contingency measures are directed at ensuring RFP and attainment by the
applicable date.'' See 57 FR 13564. Thus these requirements no longer
apply when an area has attained the standard.
    It is important to note that should an area attain the 2006
PM2.5 standard based on three years of data, its obligation
to submit an attainment demonstration and related planning submissions
is suspended only for so long as the area continues to attain the
standard. If EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment
rulemaking, that the area has violated the NAAQS, the requirements for
the State to submit a SIP to meet the previously suspended requirements
would be reinstated. It is likewise important to note that the area
remains designated nonattainment pending a further redesignation
action.

V. EPA's Proposed Action and Request for Public Comment

    EPA is proposing to determine that the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area in California has attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured, and certified data for 2009-2011.
Preliminary data available in AQS for 2012 show that the area continues
to attain the standard.
    EPA further proposes that, if its proposed determination of
attainment is made final, the requirements for the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated
RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS would be
suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA's proposal is consistent and in keeping
with its long-held interpretation of CAA requirements, as well as with
EPA's regulations for similar determinations for ozone (see 40 CFR
51.918) and the 1997 fine particulate matter standards (see 40 CFR
51.1004(c)). As described below, any such determination would not be
equivalent to the redesignation of the area to attainment for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Any final action resulting from this proposal would not constitute
a redesignation to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we
have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for
redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part
81 would remain nonattainment for the area until such time as EPA
determines that California has met the CAA requirements for
redesignating the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area to
attainment.
    If the Yuba City-Marysville nonattainment area continues to monitor
attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA proposes that the
requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration and
associated RACM, a RFP plan, contingency measures, and any other
planning requirements related to attainment of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended. If this proposed
rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after notice-
and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the area has
violated the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension
of these attainment planning requirements for the Yuba City-Marysville
nonattainment area would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter
have to address such requirements.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30 days. We will consider these
comments before taking final action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a determination of attainment based on
air quality and to suspend certain federal requirements, and thus,
would 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible

methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian
Tribes and thus this proposed action will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter, Nitrogen oxides, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26681 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42032-42033]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15170]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78120; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules 307 and 309 To Extend the
SPY Pilot Program

June 22, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on June 10, 2016, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rules 307 and
309 to extend the pilot program that eliminates the position and
exercise limits for physically-settled options on the SPDR[supreg] S&P
500[supreg] ETF Trust (``SPY Pilot Program'') and to make non-
substantive technical corrections to Interpretations and Policies .01.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rules 307, Position Limits, and 309, Exercise Limits,
establish position and exercise limits for aggregate positions in
option contracts traded on the Exchange. Interpretations and Policies
.01 to Rule 307 lists specific position limits for options on specific
underlying securities, and Interpretations and Policies .01 to Rule 309
lists specific exercise limits for options on specific underlying
securities. Among the listed specific underlying securities is the
SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] ETF Trust (``SPY''). Currently, each of
these Rules provides that there is no position limit and no exercise
limit on options overlying SPY. The position and exercise limits for
options overlying SPY in each of these Rules are the subject of a pilot
program, which is scheduled to expire on July 12, 2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75448 (July 14,
2015), 80 FR 42856 (July 20, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-46) (extending the
SPY Pilot Program to July 12, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 307, Interpretations
and Policies .01, and Exchange Rule 309, Interpretations and Policies
.01, to extend the duration of the SPY Pilot Program through July 12,
2017. There are no substantive changes being proposed to the SPY Pilot
Program. The Exchange affirms its consideration of several factors that
support the proposal to establish and extend the SPY Pilot Program,
which include: (1) The liquidity of the option and the underlying
security; (2) the market capitalization of the underlying security and
the securities that make up the S&P 500 Index; (3) options reporting
requirements; and (4) financial requirements imposed by MIAX and the
Commission.
    The Exchange notes that it is not aware of any problems created by
the current SPY Pilot Program and does not foresee any problems with
the proposed extension. The Exchange has formally submitted a Report
for the SPY Pilot Program as part of this filing.\4\ In addition, the
Exchange represents that if it chooses to extend or seek permanent
approval of the SPY Pilot Program, the Exchange will submit another SPY
Pilot Program Report at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration
of the extended SPY Pilot Program time period which would cover the
period between reports. The SPY Pilot Program Report will compare the
impact of the pilot program, if any, on the volumes of SPY options and
the volatility in the price of the underlying SPY contract,
particularly at expiration. The SPY Pilot Program Report will also
detail the size and different types of strategies employed with respect
to positions established in SPY options; note whether any problems, in
the underlying SPY ETF or otherwise, arose as a result of the no-limit
approach; and include any other information that may be useful in
evaluating the effectiveness of the SPY Pilot Program. In preparing the
Pilot Report, the Exchange will utilize various data elements such as
volume and open interest. In addition the Exchange would make available
to Commission staff data elements relating to the effectiveness of the
SPY Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exhibit 3 attached hereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the SPY Pilot Program in order for
the Exchange and the Commission to have additional time to evaluate the
Pilot and its effect on the market and to determine whether to seek
permanent approval. Prior to the expiration of the SPY Pilot Program
and based upon the findings of the SPY Pilot Program Report, the
Exchange will be able to either extend the SPY Pilot Program, adopt the
SPY Pilot Program on a permanent basis, or terminate the SPY Pilot
Program. If the SPY Pilot Program is not extended or adopted on a
permanent basis by the expiration of the extended SPY Pilot Program,
the position limits for options overlying SPY would revert to limits in

effect prior to the commencement of the SPY Pilot Program.
    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive
technical changes to the chart of securities in Interpretations and
Policies .01 of both Rule 307 and 309 to reflect the current names of
the underlying securities identified in the chart.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that extending the SPY Pilot
Program promotes just and equitable principles of trade by permitting
market participants, including market makers, institutional investors
and retail investors, to establish greater positions when pursuing
their investment goals and needs. The Exchange believes that the
elimination of position limits for SPY options would not increase
market volatility or facilitate the ability to manipulate the market.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any aspect of competition, whether between the
Exchange and its competitors, or among market participants. Instead,
the proposed rule change is designed to allow the SPY Pilot Program to
continue as the Exchange believes other competing options exchanges
will also extend the SPY Pilot Program for another year.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the 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 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2016-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-17. 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 such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2016-17, and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2016.

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

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15170 Filed 6-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From: "Dolby, Abigail"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 13:38:56  To: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 9/27/2023 Subject: RE: ABC COKE- Coke Ovens Section 114 Request Enclosure 1

See attached for part A attachments part 1.   Abby Dolby Environmental Coordinator T:<PHONE_NUMBER>  C:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<<A- Part 1.zip>>

From: Dolby, Abigail  Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:36 PM To: 'Coke ICR2'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: ABC COKE- Coke Ovens Section 114 Request Enclosure 1     See attached for part E attachments.     Abby Dolby Environmental Coordinator

T:<PHONE_NUMBER>   C:<PHONE_NUMBER>

  From: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 12:22 PM To: Dolby, Abigail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: ABC COKE- Coke Ovens Section 114 Request Enclosure 1

Hello,   This is an acknowledgement of your submission of 3 zip files to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>   Attachment:  Copy of ANSWER-Coke-Enc1-Questionnaire ICR-20162022-DrummondCompany.zip C- 303.zip D- Opacity Data.zip   Thank you

  From: Dolby, Abigail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 1:07 PM To: Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: ABC COKE- Coke Ovens Section 114 Request Enclosure 1   Good afternoon,   See attached for the excel sheet for Enclosure 1 of the 114 request for ABC Coke. The email allowed me to attach the zip folders for part D and C, but not allowing me to attach part A, B and E as they are too large.  I believe I will need a file transfer link for those parts.   Regards, Abby Dolby Environmental Coordinator

T:<PHONE_NUMBER>   C:<PHONE_NUMBER>