[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54517-54523]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17548]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0292; FRL-10013-35-OAR]

Redesignation of Certain Unclassifiable Areas for the 2010 1-Hour
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
redesignate certain unclassifiable areas designated during the EPA's
Round 2 air quality designations for the 2010 1-Hour Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).
Specifically, the EPA believes that it now has sufficient information
to determine that certain unclassifiable areas in Missouri, Nebraska,
Ohio, and Texas are attaining the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary
NAAQS, and, therefore, is proposing to redesignate these areas to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary
NAAQS.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2020-00292, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to our 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. The 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 https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    The EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading
Room for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a delay in processing mail and
faxes. Hand deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled
appointment only. For further information and updates on the EPA Docket
Center services, please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Send information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Tiffany Purifoy, OAQPS Document Control Officer, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Mail Code
C404-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2020-0292. There will be a delay in confirming receipt of CBI
packages, because the EPA-RTP office is closed to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Due to the office closure, the EPA is also
requesting that parties notify the OAQPS Document Control Officer via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>when
mailing information identified as CBI.
    The EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our Federal partners so that we can respond
rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general questions concerning this
action, please contact Ashley Keas, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division, C539-04, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709, by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Gobeail
McKinley, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air
Quality Policy Division, C539-04, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The following EPA contacts can
answer questions regarding areas in a particular EPA Regional office:

                                        U.S. EPA Regional Office Contacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Regional office             Affected state          Contact           Telephone             Email
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region V........................  Ohio...............  Mary Portanova....<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Region VI.......................  Texas..............  Robert Imhoff.....<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Region VII......................  Missouri, Nebraska.  Will Stone........<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information can also be reviewed online at https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations and also in the public docket for these
SO2 redesignations at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0292.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) establishes a process for air
quality management through the establishment and implementation of the
NAAQS.

After the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the EPA is required
to designate all areas of the country, pursuant to section 107(d)(1)-
(2) of the CAA. For the 2010 SO2 primary NAAQS, designations
are based on the EPA's application of the nationwide analytical
approach to, and technical assessment of, the weight of evidence for
each area, including but not limited to available air quality
monitoring data and air quality modeling results. In advance of
designating the areas that are the subject of this proposed
redesignation, the EPA issued updated designations guidance through a
March 20, 2015, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, U.S. EPA,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, to Air Division
Directors, U.S. EPA Regions 1-10 titled, ``Updated Guidance for Area
Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air
Quality Standard,'' which contains the factors the EPA evaluated in
determining the appropriate designations and associated boundaries,
including: (1) Air quality characterization via ambient monitoring or
dispersion modeling results; (2) emissions-related data; (3)
meteorology; (4) geography and topography; and (5) jurisdictional
boundaries. The guidance also references the EPA's non-binding
Monitoring Technical Assistance Document (Monitoring TAD) that existed
at that time.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The version of the EPA's ``SO2 NAAQS Designations
Source-Oriented Monitoring Technical Assistance Document''
(Monitoring TAD) available at the time of the Round 2 designations
action was released in December 2013. The current version of the
Monitoring TAD was released in February 2016 and superseded the
version released in December 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA completed the first set of initial area designations for
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in 2013 (Round 1). Pursuant to a
March 2, 2015, consent decree and court-ordered schedule, the EPA
finalized a second set of initial area designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in 2016 (Round 2). The March 2, 2015, consent
decree identified the following emissions criteria such that the EPA
must designate, in Round 2, an area surrounding any stationary source
which had (a) annual emissions in 2012 exceeding 16,000 tons of
SO2, or (b) both an annual average emissions rate of at
least 0.45 pounds of SO2 per one million British thermal
units (lbs SO2/mmBTU), according to the EPA's Clean Air
Markets Division Database, and annual emissions of at least 2,600 tons
of SO2 in 2012. Areas in Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and
Texas, each contained one source that met these Round 2 criteria. The
EPA evaluated each area, using the five factors identified previously,
during the Round 2 designations. Specifically, as discussed further in
Section III of this document, the Franklin County area in Missouri
contains the Labadie Energy Center; the Lancaster County area in
Nebraska contains Sheldon Station; the Gallia County area in Ohio
contains the Gavin Plant; and the Milam County area in Texas contains
the Sandow Plant.
    The March 20, 2015, guidance also specified the designation
category definitions to be used in the Round 2 designations.
Specifically, the EPA defined: A ``nonattainment'' area as an area that
the EPA has determined violates the 2010 SO2 NAAQS based on
the most recent 3 years of ambient air quality monitoring data or an
appropriate modeling analysis, or that the EPA has determined
contributes to a violation in a nearby area; an ``attainment'' area as
an area that the EPA has determined meets the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
and does not contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in a nearby area
based on either: (a) the most recent 3 years of ambient air quality
monitoring data from a monitoring network in an area that is sufficient
to be compared to the NAAQS per the EPA interpretations in the
Monitoring TAD, or (b) an appropriate modeling analysis. As discussed
further in Section III of this document, the EPA was unable to
determine whether the areas in Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas that
are the subject of this action, met the definition of a nonattainment
area or the definition of an attainment area based on the available
information at the time of the Round 2 designations. As a result, the
EPA designated each of these four areas as unclassifiable in the Round
2 designations published on July 12, 2016, and December 13, 2016.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See actions published on July 12, 2016 (81 FR 45039) and
December 13, 2016 (81 FR 89870).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Detailed rationale, analyses, and other information supporting our
initial designation for these four areas can be found in the intended
and final Round 2 designations' technical support documents for
Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas, respectively. These Round 2
documents, along with all other supporting materials for the initial
2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS designations for these areas,
can be found on the EPA's SO2 designations website.\3\
Specific technical support documents (TSDs) for the covered states are
referenced and linked in later sections of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What are the criteria for redesignating an area from unclassifiable
to attainment/unclassifiable?

    CAA Section 107(d)(3)(A) provides that the Administrator may notify
the Governor of any state that the designation of an area should be
revised ``on the basis of air quality data, planning and control
considerations, or any other air quality-related considerations the
Administrator deems appropriate.'' \4\ The Act further provides in
section 107(d)(3)(D) that even if the Administrator has not notified a
state Governor that a designation should be revised, the Governor of
any state may, on the Governor's own motion, submit a request to revise
the designation of any area, and the Administrator must approve or deny
the request. In keeping with CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), areas that are
redesignated to attainment/unclassifiable \5\ must meet the
requirements for attainment areas and thus must meet the relevant
NAAQS. In addition, the area must not contribute to ambient air quality
in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. See the definitions for
nonattainment area, attainment area, and unclassifiable area in CAA
section 107(d)(1)(A)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ While CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) also lists specific
requirements for redesignations, those requirements only apply to
redesignations of nonattainment areas to attainment and, therefore,
are not applicable in the context of a redesignation of an area from
unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable.
    \5\ Historically, the EPA has designated most areas that do not
meet the definition of nonattainment as ``unclassifiable/
attainment.'' The EPA has reversed the order of the label to be
``attainment/unclassifiable'' to better convey the definition of the
designation category and so that the category is more easily
distinguished from the separate unclassifiable category. See 83 FR
1098 (January 9, 2018) and 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018). The EPA
reserves the ``attainment'' category for when the EPA redesignates a
nonattainment area that has attained the relevant NAAQS and has an
approved maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its designations under the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, the EPA
has generally defined an attainment/unclassifiable area as an area that
meets the NAAQS and does not contribute to ambient air quality in a
nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. We are proposing to find that
these specific areas now meet this definition of attainment/
unclassifiable based on the available valid monitoring data in each
area that demonstrates attainment, i.e., no violations of and not
contributing to a nearby area that is not meeting the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. The EPA finds this information sufficient for the
purposes of redesignating an area from unclassifiable to attainment/
unclassifiable, similar to initial

designations, where the inquiry is also whether the area is factually
attaining the NAAQS, based on actual and current air quality data. Such
redesignations are functionally similar to initial designations and are
not subject to CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), which, amongst other things,
requires attainment to be due to permanent and enforceable measures and
which requires a demonstration that the area will maintain the NAAQS
for 10 years.
    For the areas in Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas, those states have
submitted formal requests \6\ to the EPA to redesignate those areas
from unclassifiable to attainment/unclassifiable.\7\ Therefore, the EPA
is proposing in this action to approve those requests and redesignate
the areas based on the available monitoring data in those areas. For
the area in Missouri, for which the EPA has not received a formal
request to redesignate the area, the EPA is concurrently notifying the
Governor of its recommendation that the area be redesignated to
attainment/unclassifiable per CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), based on the
currently available information that demonstrates attainment of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.\8\ The EPA is issuing this proposal
concurrently with notification to the state in anticipation of the
statutory timeframe provided under CAA section 107(d)(3)(B) and (C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ These redesignation requests are included in the docket for
this action.
    \7\ Ohio's April 27, 2020, letter requested that the Gallia
County area be designated attainment/unclassifiable as part of the
EPA's Round 4 designation process. As the Gallia County area was
already designated unclassifiable in Round 2, the EPA is treating
Ohio's April 27, 2020, letter as a redesignation request pursuant to
CAA section 107(d)(3)(D).
    \8\ On June 26, 2020, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources posted a redesignation request for the Franklin County
area on its website for public comment as part of the state's public
process. Missouri expects to submit the request to the EPA in the
coming months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the EPA's rationale for proposing to redesignate these
areas?

    As previously mentioned, the EPA designated each of these areas as
unclassifiable in the Round 2 designations published on July 12, 2016
(intended designations) and December 13, 2016 (final designations). As
discussed in this section, information available for each of these
areas at the time of the Round 2 designations was inconclusive and
therefore the EPA was unable to make a determination of the area's
attainment status. For each of these areas, the states selected the
monitoring pathway for purposes of air quality characterization
pursuant to the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule (DRR) (80
FR 51052, August 21, 2015). For each of these areas, the state either
identified existing SO2 monitors and/or installed and began
operating new monitors in accordance with the DRR.\9\ These monitors
now have complete 3-year design values for the 2017-2019 period.
Specifically, each area now has at least one monitor with a complete,
valid 3-year design value that is attaining the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Analyses used to support the siting of these monitors are
discussed in each state's 2016 or 2017 annual monitoring network
plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Franklin and St. Charles Counties, Missouri

    The Franklin County area contains a stationary source, the Ameren
Labadie Energy Center (Labadie), that met the Round 2 criteria,
discussed in Section I of this document, requiring the EPA to designate
this area in 2016, under the March 2, 2015, court-ordered schedule. In
its September 25, 2015, submission, regarding the second round of
designations, Missouri recommended that the area surrounding Labadie be
designated as unclassifiable. After review of all available information
at that time, including modeling provided by the state, Ameren, and
Sierra Club with differing results and uncertainties, the EPA was
unable to determine the area's attainment status. Therefore, the EPA
designated portions of Franklin and St. Charles Counties as
unclassifiable in Round 2 of designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS.10 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For more information on the EPA's Round 2 designations,
see: https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-second-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations For the intended and final
TSDs specific to Missouri, see: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/mo-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/r7_mo_final_designation_tsd_07012016.pdf.
    \11\ On September 8, 2016, Sierra Club submitted a petition for
reconsideration of the final unclassifiable designation of the
Franklin County area. In a January 18, 2017, letter, the EPA
responded to Sierra Club's petition for reconsideration, stating
that the EPA intended to initiate a new rulemaking process to be
concluded by December 31, 2020, in which the Agency would evaluate
the monitoring data for the area anticipated to be newly available
at that time. Sierra Club also filed a petition for judicial review
of the Round 2 designations that included this area; that litigation
is currently in abeyance in the D.C. Circuit. Finalizing this
proposed action would constitute the evaluation contemplated by the
EPA's January 18, 2017, letter. This letter is available on our
website here: https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/reconsideration-requests-areas-illinois-missouri-and-ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to requirements under the DRR to characterize the air
quality in the area around Labadie, Missouri identified existing
monitors and installed additional monitors around Labadie and began
collecting data at these monitors by January 1, 2017.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ More details on the analyses used to support the monitor
placement are contained in the state's 2016 annual monitoring
network plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of this proposed action, the EPA considered design values
for air quality monitors in Franklin and St. Charles Counties, in the
Labadie area, by assessing the most recent 3 consecutive years (i.e.,
2017-2019) of quality-assured, certified ambient air quality data in
the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) using data from Federal Reference
Method (FRM) and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) monitors that are
sited and operated in accordance with 40 CFR parts 50 and 58.\13\
Procedures for using monitored air quality data to determine whether a
violation has occurred are given in 40 CFR part 50 Appendix T, as
revised in the 2010 SO2 NAAQS rulemaking. The 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS is met when the design value is 75 parts per
billion (ppb) or less. Whenever several monitors are located in an
area, the design value for the area is determined by the monitor with
the highest valid design value. Table 1 contains the 2017-2019 design
values for the monitors in this area. The monitor with the highest
design value is the North site (Site ID: 29-183-9004). Although one of
the monitors in this area, the Valley site (Site ID: 29-071-9001), does
not have a valid design value for this period, the remaining three
monitors all have valid design values and are all attaining the NAAQS.
Therefore, data collected at these monitors indicate that this area is
in attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ SO2 air quality data are available from the
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
SO2 air quality design values are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                       Table 1--2010 SO2 NAAQS Design Values for the Franklin County Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2017 99th       2018 99th       2019 99th       2017-2019
       AQS site ID            Monitor location      percentile      percentile      percentile     design value
                           (latitude, longitude)       (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-071-9001 *............  Valley (38.572522, -               25              38              21              28
                            90.796911).
29-071-9002..............  Southwest (38.52814, -             22              20              30              24
                            90.86326).
29-183-9002..............  Northwest (38.581799,              21              17              19              19
                            -90.865528).
29-183-9004..............  North (38.595607, -                30              22              36              29
                            90.830618).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This monitor does not have a valid design value, but all remaining monitors in the area do have valid design
  values that are below the level of the NAAQS.

    Under the EPA's authority to undertake a redesignation action \14\
under CAA section 107(d)(3)(A), and reviewing all available
information, we are proposing to find that the 3 years of monitored
ambient SO2 data from the existing and new monitors
adequately characterize the SO2 air quality in Franklin and
St. Charles Counties and demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the same area. Specifically, the data from
these monitors indicate there are no violations in this area.
Additionally, there is no evidence of monitored or modeled violations
in the surrounding counties \15\ such that the source is not
contributing to any nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The EPA
is, therefore, proposing to redesignate the portions of Franklin and
St. Charles Counties in Missouri that were designated as unclassifiable
in July 2016, to attainment/unclassifiable based on the currently
available information that demonstrates attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ On June 26, 2020, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources posted a redesignation request for the Franklin County
area on its website for public comment as part of the state's public
process. Missouri expects to submit the request to the EPA in the
coming months.
    \15\ While a portion of neighboring Jefferson County is
currently designated as nonattainment for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, the EPA determined in a final action published on September
13, 2017, that this area is now attaining the NAAQS per the EPA's
clean data policy. See 82 FR 42945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Lancaster County, Nebraska

    The Lancaster County area contains a stationary source, the
Nebraska Public Power District's (NPPD) Sheldon Station (Sheldon), that
met the Round 2 criteria, discussed in Section I of this document,
requiring the EPA to designate this area in 2016, under the March 2,
2015, court-ordered schedule. In its September 18, 2015, submission
regarding the second round of designations, Nebraska recommended that
the area surrounding Sheldon be designated as unclassifiable. After
review of all available information at that time, including modeling
results from the state and Sierra Club with differing results and
uncertainties, the EPA was unable to determine the area's attainment
status and designated Lancaster County as unclassifiable in Round 2 of
designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For more information on the EPA's Round 2 designations, see
https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-second-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations. For the intended and final
TSDs specific to Nebraska, see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/ne-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/r7_ne_final_designation_tsd_06302016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to requirements under the DRR to characterize the air
quality in the area around Sheldon, Nebraska installed a new monitor
near the source to begin collecting data at this monitor by January 1,
2017.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ More details on the analyses used to support the monitor
placement are contained in the state's 2016 annual monitoring
network plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 6, 2020, Nebraska submitted a letter \18\ to the EPA
requesting that the entirety of Lancaster County, containing Sheldon
Station, be redesignated to attainment/unclassifiable based on the
newly available monitoring information, which demonstrates attainment
of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. To evaluate Nebraska's
redesignation request, the EPA considered the design value for the air
quality monitor in Lancaster County, in the Sheldon area, by assessing
the most recent 3 consecutive years (i.e., 2017-2019) of quality-
assured, certified ambient air quality data in the EPA AQS using data
from FRM and FEM monitors that are sited and operated in accordance
with 40 CFR parts 50 and 58.\19\ Procedures for using monitored air
quality data to determine whether a violation has occurred are given in
40 CFR part 50 Appendix T, as revised in the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
rulemaking. As noted previously, the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
is met when the design value is 75 ppb or less. Table 2 contains the
2017-2019 design value for this area. Data collected at this monitor
indicate that this area is in attainment of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This letter is included in the docket for this action.
    \19\ SO2 air quality data are available from the
EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
SO2 air quality design values are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                       Table 2--2010 SO2 NAAQS Design Value for the Lancaster County Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2017 99th       2018 99th       2019 99th       2017-2019
       AQS site ID            Monitor location      percentile      percentile      percentile     design value
                           (latitude, longitude)       (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31-109-0025..............  SW 42nd Street                     44              10              33              29
                            (40.554760, -
                            96.780350).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing Nebraska's request under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D)
and all available information, we are proposing to find that the 3
years of monitored ambient SO2 data from the new monitor
adequately characterize the SO2 air quality in Lancaster
County and demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2
NAAQS in the same area. Specifically, the data from this monitor
indicate there are no violations in this area. Additionally, there is
no evidence of monitored or modeled violations in the surrounding
counties such that the source is not contributing to any nearby

area that does not meet the NAAQS. The EPA is therefore proposing to
approve Nebraska's redesignation request and proposing to redesignate
the entirety of Lancaster County that was designated as unclassifiable
in July 2016, to attainment/unclassifiable based on the currently
available information that demonstrates attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

C. Gallia and Meigs Counties, Ohio

    The Gallia County area contains a stationary source, the General
James M. Gavin power plant (Gavin plant), that met the Round 2
criteria, discussed in Section I of this document, requiring the EPA to
designate this area in 2016, under the March 2, 2015, court-ordered
schedule. In its September 16, 2015, submission, regarding the second
round of designations, Ohio recommended that the area surrounding the
Gavin plant be designated as attainment based on a modeling
demonstration. After review of all available information at that time,
including modeling provided by both the state and Sierra Club with
differing results and uncertainties, the EPA was unable to determine
the area's attainment status. Therefore, the EPA designated the
entirety of Gallia County and a portion of Meigs County as
unclassifiable in Round 2 of the designations for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS.20 21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ For more information on EPA's Round 2 designations, see
https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-second-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations For the intended and final
TSDs specific to Ohio, see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/oh-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/documents/r5_oh_final_designation_tsd_06302016.pdf.
    \21\ On January 6, 2017, Sierra Club submitted a petition for
reconsideration of the final unclassifiable designation of the
Gallia County area. In a January 18, 2017, letter, the EPA responded
to Sierra Club's petition for reconsideration, stating that the EPA
intended to initiate a new rulemaking process to be concluded by
December 31, 2020, in which the Agency would evaluate the monitoring
data for the area anticipated to be newly available at that time.
Finalizing this proposed action would constitute the evaluation
contemplated by the EPA's January 18, 2017, letter. This letter is
available on our website https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/reconsideration-requests-areas-illinois-missouri-and-ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to requirements under the DRR to characterize the air
quality in the area around the Gavin plant and another nearby power
plant,\22\ Ohio installed four monitors in Gallia County, Ohio and
Mason County, West Virginia, to begin collecting data at these monitors
by January 1, 2017.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Kyger Creek Station is approximately 2.5 kilometers
southwest of the Gavin plant and was also a source required to be
characterized under the EPA's SO2 Data Requirements Rule.
    \23\ More details on the analyses used to support the monitor
placement are contained in the state's 2016 and 2017 annual
monitoring network plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 27, 2020, Ohio submitted a letter \24\ to the EPA
requesting that the entirety of Gallia County and the unclassifiable
portion of Meigs County be redesignated to attainment/unclassifiable
based on monitoring information demonstrating attainment. To evaluate
Ohio's redesignation request, the EPA considered the design values for
the air quality monitors in Gallia County, Ohio and Mason County, West
Virginia, in the Gallia County area, by assessing the most recent 3
consecutive years (i.e., 2017-2019) of quality-assured, certified
ambient air quality data in the EPA AQS using data from FRM and FEM
monitors that are sited and operated in accordance with 40 CFR parts 50
and 58.\25\ Procedures for using monitored air quality data to
determine whether a violation has occurred are given in 40 CFR part 50
Appendix T, as revised in the 2010 SO2 NAAQS rulemaking.
Whenever multiple monitors are located in an area, the design value for
the area is determined by the monitor with the highest valid design
value. Table 3 contains the 2017-2019 design values for the Gallia
County area. Data collected at these monitors indicate that this area
attains the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS set at 75 ppb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This letter is included in the docket for this action. As
discussed in Section II of this document, the EPA is treating Ohio's
April 27, 2020, letter as a request for redesignation under CAA
section 107(d)(3)(D).
    \25\ SO2 air quality data are available from EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
SO2 air quality design values are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                        Table 3--2010 SO2 NAAQS Design Values for the Gallia County Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2017 99th       2018 99th       2019 99th       2017-2019
       AQS site ID            Monitor location      percentile      percentile      percentile     design value
                           (latitude, longitude)       (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
39-053-0005..............  Ridge monitor 583                  34              38              54              42
                            Honeysuckle Dr.
                            (38.89495, -
                            82.14893).
39-053-0004..............  Cheshire school                    27              41              54              41
                            monitor Watson Grove
                            Rd. (38.95018, -
                            82.12211).
39-053-0006..............  Guiding Hand monitor               38              28              54              40
                            323 SR 7 North
                            (38.949450, -
                            82.110400).
54-053-0001..............  Lakin monitor Mason                35              57              61              51
                            County, WV
                            (38.95649, -
                            82.08866).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing Ohio's request under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) and
all available information, we are proposing to find that the 3 years of
monitored ambient SO2 data from the four new monitors
adequately characterize the SO2 air quality in Gallia and
Meigs Counties and demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in the same area. Specifically, the data from
these monitors indicate there are no violations in this area.
Additionally, there is no evidence of monitored or modeled violations
in the surrounding counties such that the source is not contributing to
any nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. The EPA is therefore
proposing to approve Ohio's redesignation request and proposing to
redesignate the entirety of Gallia County and the portion of Meigs
County, that were designated as unclassifiable in July 2016, to
attainment/unclassifiable based on the currently available information
that demonstrates attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

D. Milam County, Texas

    The Milam County area contains a stationary source, the Luminant
Generation Company's Sandow 5 Generating Plant (Sandow plant), that met
the Round 2 criteria, discussed in Section I of this document,
requiring the EPA to designate this area in 2016, under the March 2,
2015, court-ordered schedule. In its September 18, 2015, submission,
regarding Round 2 of designations, Texas noted that it was not able to
model all the sources impacted in that round of designations and
therefore did not provide a technical analysis for the Milam County
area nor did the state provide an updated recommendation for this area

but rather reiterated its previous recommendation for areas without
existing monitors to be designated as unclassifiable/attainment. After
review of all available information at that time, the EPA was unable to
determine the area's attainment status based on the lack of information
and designated the entirety of Milam County, Texas, as unclassifiable
in Round 2 of designations for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary
NAAQS.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ For more information on EPA's Round 2 designations, see
https://www.epa.gov/sulfur-dioxide-designations/epa-completes-second-round-sulfur-dioxide-designations. For the intended and final
TSDs specific to Texas, see https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/tx-epa-tsd-r2.pdf and https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-11/documents/texas_4_deferred_luminant_tsd_final_docket.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to requirements under the DRR to characterize the air
quality in the area around Sandow, Texas installed a new monitor near
Sandow to begin collecting data at this monitor by January 1, 2017.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ More details on the analyses used to support the monitor
placement are contained in the state's 2016 annual monitoring
network plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 26, 2020, Texas submitted a letter \28\ to the EPA
requesting that the entirety of Milam County be redesignated to
attainment/unclassifiable based on the newly available monitoring
information which demonstrates attainment. To evaluate Texas'
redesignation request, the EPA considered the design value for the air
quality monitor in Milam County, in the Sandow area, by assessing the
most recent 3 consecutive years (i.e., 2017-2019) of quality-assured,
certified ambient air quality data in the EPA AQS using data from FRM
and FEM monitors that are sited and operated in accordance with 40 CFR
parts 50 and 58.\29\ Procedures for using monitored air quality data to
determine whether a violation has occurred are given in 40 CFR part 50
Appendix T, as revised in the 2010 SO2 NAAQS rulemaking. The
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is met when the design value is 75 ppb
or less. Table 4 contains the 2017-2019 design value for this area.
Data collected at this monitor indicate that this area is in attainment
of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This letter is included in the docket for this action.
    \29\ SO2 air quality data are available from EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data.
SO2 air quality design values are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.

                         Table 4--2010 SO2 NAAQS Design Values for the Milam County Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2017 99th       2018 99th       2019 99th       2017-2019
       AQS site ID            Monitor location      percentile      percentile      percentile     design value
                           (latitude, longitude)       (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)           (ppb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48-331-1075..............  3990 John D Harper                 37               4               2              14
                            Road (30.569534, -
                            97.076294).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas' redesignation request to the EPA also indicated that the
Sandow plant permanently ceased operations in January 2018. The EPA
independently confirmed the plant is no longer permitted to
operate.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ In a letter dated February 14, 2018, from Luminant to the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Luminant requested
to void Sandow permits 4980, PSDTX28, PSDTX28M1, 16684, 39718,
45425, 72521, 97146, and 125855. The remaining permits (NSR Permit
5473, PBR 87631, PBR 94625 and Standard Permit 108271) are material
handling permits maintained while closure activities are completed,
such as coal piles, silos, and conveyors. In a letter dated July 19,
2018, from the TCEQ to Luminant, TCEQ verified the air quality
federal operating permit O54 for the Sandow plant was voided. These
letters are included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing Texas' request under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D) and
all available information, we are proposing to find that the 3 years of
monitored ambient SO2 data from the new monitor adequately
characterize the SO2 air quality in Milam County and
demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in the
same area. Specifically, the data from this monitor indicate there are
no violations in this area. Additionally, there is no evidence of
monitored or modeled violations in the surrounding counties such that
the source is not contributing to any nearby area that does not meet
the NAAQS. The EPA is therefore proposing to approve Texas'
redesignation request and proposing to redesignate the entirety of
Milam County, that was designated as unclassifiable in December 2016,
to attainment/unclassifiable based on the currently available
information that demonstrates attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to redesignate to attainment/unclassifiable
the unclassifiable portions of Franklin and St. Charles Counties in
Missouri; the entirety of Lancaster County in Nebraska; the entirety of
Gallia County and the unclassifiable portion of Meigs County in Ohio;
and the entirety of Milam County in Texas. Additionally, the EPA is
proposing to approve requests for redesignation from the states of
Nebraska, Ohio, and Texas. For the area in Missouri, the EPA is
initiating this redesignation action under the authority of CAA section
107(d)(3)(A). As discussed in prior sections, this proposed action is
based on the currently available monitoring data for these areas that
demonstrate attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary NAAQS.
If finalized, this redesignation action and approval of the
redesignation requests would change the legal designation for these
listed areas, found at 40 CFR part 81, from unclassifiable to
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 primary
NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under CAA section 107(d)(3), redesignation of an area to
attainment/unclassifiable is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any additional regulatory
requirements on sources beyond those imposed by state law. A
redesignation to attainment/unclassifiable does not in and of itself
create any new requirements. Accordingly, this proposed action merely
proposes to redesignate an area to attainment/unclassifiable and does
not impose additional requirements. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is exempt under Executive Order
12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is not subject to 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);
     Is not subject because it does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999);
     Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks;
     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 this action does not involve technical standards;
     Will not have disproportionate human health or
environmental effects under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994); and
     Does not have Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) because no tribal
lands are located within the areas covered in this action and the
redesignation does not create new requirements. The EPA notes this
proposed action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.

Anne Austin,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2020-17548 Filed 9-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71568-71571]
[DOCID:fr29no05-108]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52818; File No. SR-CBOE-2005-91]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Its
Marketing Fee Program

November 22, 2005.

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on November 2, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' 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. On November 17, 2005, the CBOE submitted Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change.\3\ The CBOE has designated this proposal as
one changing a fee imposed by the CBOE under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act \4\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\5\ which renders the
proposal, as amended, effective upon filing with the Commission. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Partial Amendment No. 1 (``Amendment No. 1''): (1) Amended
the effective date of the proposal from November 1, 2005 to November
2, 2005; (2) amended the purpose section of the filing to clarify
that the Preferred Market-Maker Program is a pilot program set to
expire on June 2, 2006; (3) amended the rule text to specify that
the marketing fee program will expire on June 2, 2006, the date the
Preferred Market-Maker Program is set to expire; and (4) made a
technical correction to a footnote.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CBOE proposes to amend its Fees Schedule and its marketing fee
program in a number of respects, including to

permit a ``Preferred Market-Maker'' to direct the Exchange to disburse
funds generated by the marketing fee where an order provider sends an
order to the Exchange designating a Preferred Market-Maker. These
changes to the marketing fee program would be effective November 2,
2005 and remain in effect until June 2, 2006, which is the date that
CBOE's pilot program establishing its Preferred Market-Maker program is
scheduled to expire, unless extended through a rule filing submitted to
and approved by the Commission.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the text of the proposed rule change, as amended. Proposed
new language is in italic; proposed deletions are in [brackets].\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHICAGO BOARD OPTIONS EXCHANGE, INC.

FEES SCHEDULE

[October 25] November 2, 2005

    1. No Change.
    2. MARKETING FEE (6)(16)--$.22
    3.-4. No Change.

    FOOTNOTES:

    (1)-(5) No Change.
    (6) The Marketing Fee will be assessed only on transactions of
Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs, and LMMs at the rate of $.22 per
contract on all classes of equity options, options on HOLDRs, options
on SPDRs, and options on DIA. The fee will not apply to Market-Maker-
to-Market-Maker transactions. This fee shall not apply to index options
and options on ETFs (other than options on SPDRs and options on DIA).
If less than 80% of the marketing fee funds are paid out by the DPM or
LMM in a given month, then [Should any surplus of the marketing fees at
the end of each month occur,] the Exchange would [then] refund such
surplus at the end of the month[, if any,] on a pro rata basis based
upon contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, e-DPMs, DPMs and
LMMs. However, if 80% or more of the accumulated funds in a given month
are paid out by the DPM or LMM, there will not be a rebate for that
month and the funds will carry over and will be included in the pool of
funds to be used by the DPM or LMM the following month. At the end of
each quarter, the Exchange would then refund any surplus, if any, on a
pro rata basis based upon contributions made by the Market-Makers,
RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs and LMMs. CBOE's marketing fee program as described
above will be in effect until June 2, 2006.
* * * * *

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange states that on October 29, 2004, it amended its
marketing fee program.\8\ The current marketing fee is assessed upon
Designated Primary Market-Makers (``DPMs''), Electronic DPMs (``e-
DPMs''), Remote Market-Makers (``RMMs''), Lead Market-Makers
(``LMMs''), and Market-Makers at a rate of $0.22 for every contract
they enter into on the Exchange other than Market-Maker-to-Market-Maker
transactions (which includes all transactions between any combination
of DPMs, e-DPMs, RMMs, LMMs, and Market-Makers). The marketing fee is
assessed in all equity option classes and options on
HOLDRs[reg] \9\, options on SPDRs[reg] \10\ and
options on DIA.\11\ The Exchange represents that the purpose of the
marketing fee program is to provide the members of the Exchange with
the ability to compete for the opportunity to trade with those orders
that may otherwise be routed to other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For a description of CBOE's marketing fee program, see
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50736 (November 24, 2004), 69 FR
69966 (December 1, 2004) (SR-CBOE-2004-68).
    \9\ HOLDRs are trust-issued receipts that represent an
investor's beneficial ownership of a specified group of stocks. See
Interpretation .07 to CBOE Rule 5.3.
    \10\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51052 (January 18,
2005), 70 FR 3757 (January 26, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-05).
    \11\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52474 (September
20, 2005), 70 FR 56520 (September 27, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that under the current program, all funds
generated by the marketing fee are collected by the Exchange and
recorded according to the DPM or LMM, as applicable, station and class
where the options subject to the fee are traded. The money collected is
disbursed by the Exchange according to the instructions of the DPM or
LMM. Those funds are made available to the DPM or LMM solely for those
trading crowds where the fee was assessed and may only be used by that
DPM or LMM to attract orders in the classes of options for which the
fee was assessed.
    CBOE recently obtained approval of a rule filing adopting a
Preferred Market-Maker program.\12\ Under that program, order providers
can send an order to the Exchange designating any CBOE Market-Maker
(including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, RMM, and Market-Maker) as a Preferred
Market-Maker. If the Preferred Market-Maker is quoting at the NBBO at
the time the order is received on CBOE, the Preferred Market-Maker is
entitled to a participation entitlement of 50% when there is one
Market-Maker also quoting at the best bid/offer on the Exchange and 40%
when there are two or more Market-Makers quoting at the best bid/offer
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52506 (September
23, 2005), 70 FR 57340 (September 30, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2005-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBOE proposes to amend its marketing fee program in a number of
respects in light of the recent adoption of its Preferred Market-Maker
program. These changes to the marketing fee program would be effective
November 2, 2005 and expire on June 2, 2006, which is the date that
CBOE's pilot program establishing its Preferred Market-Maker program is
scheduled to expire, unless extended through a rule filing submitted to
and approved by the Commission.\13\ In particular, CBOE proposes to
amend its marketing fee program to provide that a Market-Maker would
have access to the marketing fee funds generated by orders sent to the
Exchange designating that Market-Maker as a ``Preferred Market-Maker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Amendment No. 1, supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is a description of the three-step process by which
the entire pool of funds generated by the marketing fee would be
apportioned between the DPM or LMM, and Preferred Market-Makers. First,
consistent with the current program, each month all funds generated by
the marketing fee would be collected by the Exchange and recorded
according to the DPM or LMM, as applicable, station and class where the
option classes subject to the fee are traded. If a Market-Maker
(including any DPM, e-DPM, LMM, and RMM) is designated as a Preferred
Market-Maker on an order from a payment accepting firm (``PAF''), the
Market-Maker would be given access to the marketing fee funds generated
from that order, even if the Preferred Market-Maker did not participate
in the

execution of the order because the Market-Maker was not quoting at the
NBBO at the time the order was received on CBOE.\14\ The Exchange
believes that it is appropriate to give Preferred Market-Makers access
to all of the funds generated by the marketing fee for any order as to
which they were designated the Preferred Market-Maker because the
Preferred Market-Maker negotiated with a PAF to send their order flow
to CBOE and to designate a particular Market-Maker as the Preferred
Market-Maker. Second, the DPM or LMM, as applicable, would be given
access to the marketing fee funds generated from all other orders from
PAFs in its appointed classes in a particular trading station. Third,
the marketing fee funds generated by orders from non-PAFs, if any,
would be apportioned monthly among the DPM or LMM, and Preferred
Market-Makers on a on a pro-rata basis, based on the percentage of
contracts traded by each DPM or LMM and Preferred Market-Maker against
orders from PAFs during the month in the option classes located at a
particular trading station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For example, assume a Market-Maker is designated as a
Preferred Market-Maker on an order for 50 contracts which is
executed on CBOE. Under this first step, the Preferred Market-Maker
would be given access to a total of $11 (50 contracts x $.22),
whether or not the Preferred Market-Maker traded with the order or
not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following is an example of how funds generated from CBOE's
marketing fee program would be allocated to Preferred Market-Makers,
DPMs, and LMMs pursuant to the preceding three steps. As noted above,
each month all funds generated by the marketing fee are collected by
the Exchange and recorded according to the DPM or LMM, as applicable,
station and class where the option classes subject to the fee are
traded. Thus, assuming 45,455 contracts traded in a particular month at
Station 1 on the trading floor, $10,000 (45,455 contracts x $.22) would
be generated as a result of the marketing fee to be used to attract
order flow to CBOE.
    Pursuant to Step 1, assuming the DPM and two other Market-Makers
were designated as Preferred Market-Makers for orders executed in
option classes at Station 1, they would be allocated the following
funds:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Contracts   Funds Allocated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPM......................................       5,000             $1,100
                                                          ($.22 * 5,000)
Preferred Market-Maker 1........       2,500               $550
                                                          ($.22 * 2,500)
Preferred Market-Maker 2........       3,500               $770
                                                          ($.22 * 3,500)
      Total..............................      11,000             $2,420
                                                         ($.22 * 11,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Step 2, the Exchange would determine the amount of
funds generated from orders from PAFs that were executed in option
classes at Station 1, and these funds would be allocated to the DPM to
attract order flow to CBOE. Assuming orders from PAFs representing
10,000 contracts were executed with Market-Makers (including the DPM or
LMM, e-DPM(s), and RMM(s)), at Station 1, $2,200 (10,000*$.22) in funds
would be generated and allocated to the DPM.
    As a result of Steps 1 and 2 above, the original pool of funds
generated by the marketing fee at Station ($10,000), would have been
depleted in Step 1 by $2,420, and in Step 2 by $2,200. Assuming
remaining number of contracts executed at Station 1, i.e., 24,455
contracts, \15\ were from orders from non-PAFs, a total of $5,380
(24,455 * $.22) would be the remaining balance of funds. Pursuant to
Step 3, these funds would be apportioned monthly among the DPM (or LMM)
and Preferred Market-Makers on a pro-rata basis, based on the
percentage of contracts traded by each DPM (or LMM) and Preferred
Market-Maker against orders from PAFs. Assuming the DPM and the two
Preferred Market-Makers executed the following percentage of contracts
from orders from PAFs at Station 1, they would be allocated the
following funds:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 45,455 less 11,000 contracts (see Step 1) and 10,000
contracts (see Step 2).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            % of PAF
                                            contracts   Funds allocated
                                            (percent)      (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPM......................................          65             $3,497
                                                           (65 * $5,380)
Preferred Market-Maker 1........          15                807
                                                           (15 * $5,380)
Preferred Market-Maker 2........          20              1,076
                                                           (20 * $5,380)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The funds generated by the marketing fee would continue to be
collected by the Exchange and recorded according to the applicable
trading station and class where the options subject to the fee are
traded. The money collected would be disbursed by the Exchange
according to the instructions of the DPM, LMM or the Preferred Market-
Maker. These funds shall only be used to attract order flow to CBOE
from PAF, and the funds made available to the DPM or LMM may only be
used to attract orders in the option classes located at the trading
station where the fee was assessed. Thus, a member organization
appointed as the DPM at a particular trading station on the trading
floor cannot use the funds from that trading station to attract order
flow to another trading station on the trading floor where that member
serves as the DPM.
    Additionally, the Exchange does not intend to continue to require
that the funds collected from e-DPMs and RMMs can only be used to
attract order flow for the classes in which the e-DPM or RMM is
appointed. The Exchange does not believe such a restriction is
necessary or reasonable in light of manner in which firms negotiate
with PAFs to direct their order flow to the Exchange. Specifically, the
Exchange notes that many DPMs or LMMs negotiate with PAFs to route
their order flow to the Exchange for all of the classes located at a
particular trading station, and not necessarily on a class-by-class
basis. Additionally, any use of the marketing fees by the DPM outside
of an RMM's or an e-DPM's appointment may still benefit the RMM or e-
DPM because e-DPMs and RMMs are permitted under Exchange rules to enter
orders in option classes traded on the Exchange that are not included
within their appointment. Therefore, the Exchange believes that there
is an equitable allocation of use of the fees by the DPM because the
order flow from a PAF can be accessed by an RMM or eDPM, outside their
appointments, through ``M'' orders.
    In the event a Preferred Market-Maker does not disburse all of the
funds generated by the marketing fee in a given month, then the funds
the Preferred Market-Maker does not disburse would be made available to
the DPM or LMM, as applicable, for the following month to attract
orders in the classes of options where the DPM or LMM is appointed.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend the program with respect to
the manner in which surplus funds are refunded to Market-Makers, RMMs,
DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs. Currently, the Exchange refunds any surplus at
the end of the month on a pro rata basis based upon contributions made
by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs. Going forward, if
80% or more of the accumulated funds in a given month are paid out by
the DPM or LMM, there would not be a rebate for that month and the
funds would carry over and would be included in the pool

of funds to be used by the DPM or LMM in the following month. If less
than 80% of the funds is paid out, Market-Maker rebates would continue
to be made on a monthly basis. At the end of each quarter, the Exchange
would then refund any surplus, if any, on a pro rata basis based upon
contributions made by the Market-Makers, RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs.
    In the foregoing example, the DPM and Preferred Market-Maker
1 and Preferred Market-Maker 2 were allocated the
following amounts:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Total allocated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DPM...................................................            $6,797
                                                         ($1,100 + 2,200
                                                                + 3,497)
Preferred Market-Maker 1.....................             1,357
                                                            ($550 + 807)
Preferred Market-Maker 2.....................             1,846
                                                           ($770 + 1076)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the DPM only paid out a total of $6,150 of the $6,797 allocated
to it in a given month (or 90% of its funds), then $647 would carry
over for the DPM to use to attract order in the following month. If
Preferred Market-Maker 1 paid out a total of $1,200 of the
$1,357 allocated to it in a given month, then $157 would be made
available to the DPM (or LMM) for the following month to attract orders
in the classes of options where the DPM (or LMM) is appointed. If
Preferred Market-Maker 2 paid out a total of $1,846 allocated
to it in a given month, then none of Preferred Market-Maker
2's funds would carry over to the DPM (or LMM) for the
following month.
    As in the current marketing fee program, the Exchange would not be
involved in the determination of the terms governing the orders that
qualify for payment with any PAF or the amount of any such payment. The
Exchange would provide administrative support for the program in such
matters as maintaining the funds, keeping track of the number of
qualified orders each firm directs to the Exchange, and making the
necessary debits and credits to the accounts of the traders and the
PAFs to reflect the payments that are made. Exchange Market-Makers,
RMMs, DPMs, e-DPMs, and LMMs would have no way of identifying prior to
execution whether a particular order is from a PAF or a non-PAF.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal, as amended, is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act\16\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act\17\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges
among CBOE members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change, as amended, has been designated
as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \18\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \19\ thereunder, because it establishes or changes a
due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange. Accordingly, the
proposal will took effect upon filing with the Commission. At any time
within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, as amended,
the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to
the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
    \20\ The effective date of the original proposed rule change is
November 2, 2005, the effective date of Amendment No. 1 is November
17, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposal, the Commission
considers the period to commence on November 17, 2005, the date on
which the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

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

File Number SR-CBOE-2005-91 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-91. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change, as amended, between the Commission and any
person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in
accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for
inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room.
Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying
at the principal office of the CBOE. 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-CBOE-2005-91 and should be submitted on
or before December 20, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6659 Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA-2011-0573; Dir ID 2011-NM-082-AD

X-Ref AD 2007-06-18


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 32636]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13347]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9680-5]

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92463,
EPA gives notice of a meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(Board). The Board usually meets three times each calendar year, twice
at different locations along the U.S. border with Mexico, and once in
Washington, DC. It was created in 1992 by the Enterprise for the
Americas Initiative Act, Public Law 102-532, 7 U.S.C. Section 5404.
Implementing authority was delegated to the Administrator of EPA under
Executive Order 12916. The Board is responsible for providing advice to
the President and the Congress on environmental and infrastructure
issues and needs within the States contiguous to Mexico in order to
improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States
side of the border. The statute calls for the Board to have
representatives from U.S. Government agencies; the states of Arizona,
California, New Mexico and Texas; and tribal and private organizations
with experience in environmental and infrastructure issues along the
US-Mexico border.
    The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussion on the Board's
15th report, which is focusing on water issues in the border region. A
copy of the meeting agenda will be posted at http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb.

DATES: The Good Neighbor Environmental Board will hold an open meeting
on Thursday, June 28, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. (registration at 8 a.m.) to
6 p.m. The following day, Friday, June 29, 2012, the Board will meet
from 8 a.m. until 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel
El Paso Downtown, 600 North El Paso Street, El Paso, Texas 79901, and
phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The meeting is open to the public, with
limited seating on a first-come, first-serve basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Joyce, Acting Designated Federal
Officer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-564-2130, U.S. EPA, Office of Federal
Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (1601M), 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you wish to make oral comments or submit
written comments to the Board, please contact Mark Joyce at least five
days prior to the meeting.
    General Information: Additional information concerning the GNEB can
be found on its Web site at www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Mark Joyce at 202-564-
2130 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Mark Joyce at least 10 days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: May 22, 2012.
Mark Joyce,
Acting Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-13347 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77002-77005]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31048]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0025]

Expansion of the Scope of NRTL Recognition of Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.; Modification to the Scopes of NRTL Recognition of FM
Approvals LLC, Intertek Testing Services NA Inc., and Underwriters
Laboratories Inc.

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration's final decision expanding the recognition of
Underwriters Laboratories Inc., (UL) as a Nationally Recognized Testing
Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7. This notice also modifies the
scopes of recognition of the following three NRTLs: FM Approvals LLC,
Intertek Testing Services NA Inc., and Underwriters Laboratories Inc.

DATES: The expansion of recognition and modification to the scopes of
recognition becomes effective on December 10, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210,
or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Final Decision

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby
gives notice that it is expanding recognition of Underwriters
Laboratories Inc., (UL) as an NRTL. UL's expansion covers the use of
additional test standards. OSHA's current scope of recognition for UL
is in the following informational Web page: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/ul.html.
    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the legal requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an
acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety
testing and certification of the specific products covered within its
scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government
authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products
approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product
testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing such an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html. Each NRTL's scope of recognition has three elements: (1)
The type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its
applicable test standard; (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the
technical capability to perform the testing and certification
activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope; and (3) the
supplemental program(s) that the NRTL may use, each of which allows the
NRTL to rely on other parties to perform activities necessary for
product testing and certification.
    UL submitted an application, dated February 20, 2008, as an
amendment to its application for renewal of recognition. (Ex. 2-UL
expansion application dated 2/20/2008.) This amendment requested an
expansion of recognition to add 98 standards \1\ to UL's scope, and to
delete several test standards from its scope. The NRTL Program staff
determined that 49 of the requested standards are ``appropriate test
standards'' within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). UL later modified
its request to reduce the number of the appropriate standards to 35.
(Ex. 3-UL amended expansion application dated 2/16/2010.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ UL requested recognition for ANSI/AAMI ES60601-1:2005, but
OSHA has not yet determined whether this standard may be used by
NRTLs. OSHA will request public comment on the suitability of this
standard in an upcoming Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In connection with this request, NRTL Program staff did not perform
any on-site review of UL's recognized sites. The staff only performed a
comparability analysis,\2\ and recommended expansion of UL's
recognition to include the 35 test standards. The Agency published a
preliminary notice announcing the expansion application in the Federal
Register on April 26, 2010 (79 FR 21664). OSHA requested comments on
the notice by May 11, 2010; OSHA received no comments in response to
this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this final notice to grant
UL's expansion application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This analysis involves determining whether the testing and
evaluation requirements of test standards already in an NRTL's scope
are comparable to the requirements in the standards requested by the
NRTL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All public documents pertaining to the UL application are available
for review by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. These materials also
are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
OSHA-2009-0025.

Final Decision and Order

    NRTL Program staff examined UL's application, the comparability
analysis, and other pertinent information. Based upon this examination
and the analysis, OSHA finds that UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitation and
conditions listed below. Pursuant to the authority granted by 29 CFR
1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of UL, subject to this
limitation and these conditions.

Limitation

    OSHA limits the expansion of UL's recognition to testing and
certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the
following test standards, each of which OSHA determines is an
appropriate test standard within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c):

IEEE C37.20.4 Indoor AC Switches (1 kV-38 kV) for Use in Metal-Enclosed
Switchgear \a\
IEEE C37.20.6 4.76 kV to 38 kV Rated Grounding and Testing Devices Used
in Enclosures \a\
IEEE C37.23 Metal-Enclosed Bus \a\
IEEE C37.41 High-Voltage Fuses, Distribution Enclosed Single-Pole Air
Switches, Fuse Disconnecting Switches, and Accessories \a\
IEEE C37.74 Subsurface, Vault, and Pad-Mounted Load-Interrupter
Switchgear and Fused Load-Interrupter Switchgear for Alternating
Current Systems Up to 38 kV Switchgear \a\
IEEE C57.12.44 Secondary Network Protectors \a\
ISA 12.12.01 Nonincendive Electrical Equipment for Use in Class I and
II, Division 2 and Class III, Divisions 1 and 2 Hazardous (Classified)
Locations
UL 5C Surface Raceways and Fittings for Use with Data, Signal, and
Control Circuits
UL 283 Air Fresheners and Deodorizers
UL 458 Power Converters/Inverters and Power Converter/Inverter Systems
for Land Vehicles and Marine Crafts \b\
NFPA 496 Purged and Pressurized Enclosures for Electrical Equipment
UL 852 Metallic Sprinkler Pipe for Fire Protection Service
UL 962 Household and Commercial Furnishings \c\
UL 1340 Hoists
UL 1626 Residential Sprinklers for Fire Protection Service
UL 2225 Cables and Cable Fittings for Use in Hazardous (Classified)
Locations
UL 2443 Flexible Sprinkler Hose with Fittings for Fire Protection
Service
UL 5085-2 Low Voltage Transformers--Part 2: General Purpose
Transformers

UL 60730-2-8 Automatic Electrical Controls for Household and Similar
Use; Part 2: Particular Requirements for Electrically Operated Water
Valves, Including Mechanical Requirements
UL 60745-2-1 Particular Requirements for Drills and Impact Drills
UL 60745-2-3 Particular Requirements for Grinders, Polishers and Disk-
Type Sanders
UL 60745-2-11 Particular Requirements for Reciprocating Saws
UL 60745-2-12 Particular Requirements for Concrete Vibrators
UL 60745-2-14 Particular Requirements for Planers
UL 60745-2-17 Particular Requirements for Routers and Trimmers
UL 60745-2-18 Particular Requirements for Strapping Tools
UL 60745-2-19 Particular Requirements for Jointers
UL 60745-2-2 Particular Requirements for Screwdrivers and Impact
Wrenches
UL 60745-2-20 Particular Requirements for Band Saws
UL 60745-2-21 Particular Requirements for Drain Cleaners
UL 60745-2-4 Particular Requirements for Sanders and Polishers Other
Than Disk Type
UL 60745-2-5 Particular Requirements for Circular Saws
UL 60745-2-6 Particular Requirements for Hammers
UL 60745-2-8 Particular Requirements for Shears and Nibblers
UL 60745-2-9 Particular Requirements for Tappers

    Notes:

    \a\ Recognition for this standard does not apply to testing and
certification of equipment or materials used in installations
excluded from the provisions of subpart S in 29 CFR 1910 by section
1910.302(a)(2).
    \b\ OSHA limits recognition for this standard to testing and
certification of products used within recreational vehicles and
mobile homes.
    \c\ OSHA limits recognition of this standard to testing and
certification of the electrical devices falling within the
standard's scope.

    The designations and titles of the above test standards were
current at the time of the preparation of this notice.
    OSHA limits recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard
to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards
require third-party testing and certification before use of the product
in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any
product for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification,
an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product.
    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the
test standards listed above as American National Standards. However,
for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C,
paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may
use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI
version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test
standard is currently ANSI-approved.

Conditions

    UL also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition,
in addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
    1. UL must allow OSHA access to its facilities and records to
ascertain continuing compliance with the terms of its recognition, and
to perform investigations as OSHA deems necessary;
    2. If UL has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it
is using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard-
developing organization of this concern and provide that organization
with appropriate relevant information upon which it bases its concern;
    3. UL must not engage in, or permit others to engage in, any
misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As
part of this condition, UL agrees that it will allow no representation
that it is either a recognized or an accredited NRTL without clearly
indicating the specific equipment or material to which this recognition
applies, and also clearly indicating that its recognition is limited to
specific products;
    4. UL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
changes in its operations as an NRTL, including details of these
changes;
    5. UL will meet all the terms of its recognition, and will always
comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    6. UL will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all
areas covered by its scope of recognition.

Issue Regarding NFPA Standards

    In this notice, OSHA is modifying the scopes of recognition of
three NRTLs. Specifically, five standards that OSHA currently includes,
to varying degrees, in the scopes of recognition of these NRTLs are not
``appropriate test standards'' under 29 CFR 1910.7(c) because they do
not primarily cover product-safety testing. In addition, OSHA has no
requirement for NRTL approval of the systems covered by these
standards. Consequently, OSHA is removing the test standards from the
scopes of recognition of each affected NRTL (see list below).
    OSHA specifies a scope of recognition for each NRTL that includes a
list of product-safety test standards that the NRTL may use in testing
and certifying (i.e., approving) products; NRTLs must demonstrate that
the products conform to ``appropriate test standards,'' as defined
under 29 CFR 1910.7(c). ``Appropriate test standards'' are consensus-
based product-safety test standards developed and maintained by U.S.-
based standards-developing organizations (SDOs). These test standards
are not OSHA standards, which are general requirements that employers
must meet; the test standards specify technical safety requirements
that particular types of products must meet.
    The notice for the expansion described above also proposed the
removal of these five test standards from each affected NRTL's scope of
recognition. OSHA requested comments on the notice by May 11, 2010;
OSHA received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is
proceeding with this final notice modifying the scopes of recognition
of the affected NRTLs (see list below).
    OSHA will incorporate the modifications specified by this notice on
its informational Web page for each affected NRTL. This page details
OSHA's official scope of recognition for the NRTL, including the
standards the NRTL may use to certify products under OSHA's NRTL
Program. Access to these Web pages is available through http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    Modification to Each NRTL's Scope of Recognition: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For each test standard deleted, OSHA uses the name as it now
appears on OSHA's informational Web page for each NRTL. These names
may differ from the standard's current name (i.e., name as of the
date of this notice), which are as follows:
    ANSI/NFPA 11 Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion Foam
    ANSI/NFPA 12 Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems
    ANSI/NFPA 12A Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems
    ANSI/NFPA 16 Standard for the Installation of Foam-Water
Sprinkler and Foam-Water Spray Systems
    ANSI/NFPA 17 Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

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

FM Approvals LLC (FM)

    Deleted Test Standards:

ANSI 11 Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems
ANSI 12 Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems
ANSI 12A Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Agent Systems
ANSI 16 Deluge Foam-Water Sprinkler and Spray Systems
ANSI 17 Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (ITSNA)

    Deleted Test Standards:

ANSI/NFPA 11 Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems
ANSI/NFPA 12 Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems
ANSI/NFPA 12A Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Agent Systems
ANSI/NFPA 17 Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL)

    Deleted Test Standards:

ANSI/NFPA 11 Low Expansion Foam and Combined Agent Systems
ANSI/NFPA 12 Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing Systems
ANSI/NFPA 12A Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Agent Systems
ANSI/NFPA 17 Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210, directed the preparation of this notice.
Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Sections
6(b) and 8(g) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29
U.S.C. 655 and 657), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010 (75 FR
55355), and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 6, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-31048 Filed 12-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P