[Federal Register: December 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 74508-74510]
[DOCID:fr12de06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 4, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG07-13-000.
    Applicants: Endeavor Power Partners, LLC.
    Description: Endeavor Power Partners, LLC submits a notice of self-
certification of exempt wholesale generator status.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: EG07-17-000.
    Applicants: MMC Mid-Sun, LLC.
    Description: MMC Mid-Sun, LLC submits a notice of Self-
Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-5058.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER99-3151-007; ER97-837-006.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC; Public Service
Electric and Gas Company.
    Description: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade, LLC and Public Service
Electric & Gas Co. submit a joint triennial market power report.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-9-008; ER98-2157-009.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.; Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Westar Energy Inc, et al., submits a notice of non-
material change in status related to its purchase of the Spring Creek
Power Plant located in Logan County, Oklahoma.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-719-004.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Services Inc, on behalf of Entergy Arkansas
Inc submits a refund report in compliance with FERC's 11/2/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-451-012; ER06-1047-005.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits a compliance filing
pursuant to the Commission's 10/26/06 order, to modify energy imbalance
market and market monitoring procedures.
    Filed Date: 11/27/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 18, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1343-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits corrections to its
Wholesale Market Participation

Agreement pursuant to the Commission's request.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1420-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
and the Signatory Parties submit proposed revisions to Section 1 of
Midwest Contingency Reserve Sharing Group Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006
    Accession Number: 20061204-0138.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1422-001.
    Applicants: Louisville Gas & Electric Company; Kentucky Utilities
Company.
    Description: Louisville Gas and Electric Co and Kentucky Utilities
Co submit a compliance filing re the Automatic Reserve Energy Sales
Tariff pursuant to the 11/14/06 Letter Order.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0080.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1471-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc submits sub. Original Sheets 134A-
134B, Schedule 4A, to FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 5
pursuant to FERC's 10/30/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1488-002.
    Applicants: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co submits revised pages to
its Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Third
Revised Volume 2, pursuant to the Commission's 10/30/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0136.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-59-001.
    Applicants: Fortis Energy Marketing & Trading GP.
    Description: Fortis Energy Marketing & Trading GP submits
Substitute Original Sheet Nos. 1-3 of its FERC Gas Tariff Original
Volume 1 filed 10/23/06.
    Filed Date: 11/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 8, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-109-001.
    Applicants: BTEC Southaven LLC.
    Description: BTEC Southaven LLC submits a clean and black-lined
version of Substitute Original Sheet 1, FERC Electric Tariff, Original
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0079.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-110-001.
    Applicants: BTEC New Albany LLC.
    Description: BTEC New Albany LLC submits a clean and black-lined
version of the revised Substitute Original Sheet 1 et al. to its FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0082.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-250-000.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.; Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits a Second Revised Sheet 1
et al. of Rate Schedule FERC 152 with the Missouri Public Service
Company.
    Filed Date: 11/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-0198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-251-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison submits the Anaheim-Puente
Development Wholesale Distribution Load Interconnection Facilities
Agreement etc. with the City of Industry.
    Filed Date: 11/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-0199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-252-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits a Letter
Agreement with the Los Angeles County Sanitation District 2 of Los
Angeles County, CA.
    Filed Date: 11/28/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 19, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-253-000.
    Applicants: E.ON U.S., LLC.
    Description: E.ON U.S., LLC on behalf of Louisville Gas & Electric
Co et al. submits an executed umbrella Firm Point-to-Point transmission
service agreement etc. with East Kentucky Power Coop et al.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-254-000.
    Applicants: Casselman Windpower LLC.
    Description: Casselman Windpower LLC submits its initial rate
schedule, a request for granting of authorizations and blanket
authority and for waivers of certain requirements.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-255-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co submits two rate sheets
to the Nandina Avenue Wholesale Distribution Load Interconnection
Facilities Agreement with the City of Moreno Valley.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-256-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits an executed
Interconnection Service Agreement with Catoctin Power LLC, and The
Potomac Edison Company.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-257-000.
    Applicants: Connecticut Light and Power Company; Northeast
Utilities Service Company.
    Description: Northeast Utilities Service Co on behalf of the
Connecticut Light and Power Co submits two agreements relating to the
construction and use of the Long Island Sound Replacement Cable.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-258-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Pool Participants Committee.
    Description: New England Power Pool Participants Committee submits
a counterpart signature pages of the New England Power Pool Agreement
dated as of 9/1/71 as amended & executed by SAC Energy Investments, LP
et al.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-259-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Power LLC.
    Description: Cleco Power LLC submits an unexecuted Joint Interface
Facility Operating and Maintenance Agreement with Entergy Services,
Inc.

    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-260-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits its Second Revised Rate Schedule
248 canceling their First Revised Rate Schedule 248 with Southern
California Edison.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061201-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-262-000.
    Applicants: Central Vermont Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Central Vermont Public Service Corp, on behalf of The
Village of Morrisville Water and Light Department submits an executed
Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0137.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-264-000.
    Applicants: MMC Mid-Sun, LLC.
    Description: MMC Mid-Sun, LLC submits its application for
acceptance of Initial Market-Based Rate Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-265-000.
    Applicants: Sempra Energy Solutions LLC.
    Description: Sempra Energy Solutions, LLC submits a notice of
succession that reflects the adoption by Sempra Energy Solution's First
Revised Rate Schedule 1.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061204-0133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-266-000; ER06-1485-002.
    Applicants: Xcel Energy Services Inc.
    Description: Xcel Energy Services Inc. submits a revised version of
Schedule 4A-Reserve Sharing Energy Charges to Xcel Energy Operating
Open Access Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised
Volume 1 pursuant to the Commission's 10/30/06 Order.
    Filed Date: 11/29/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-0189.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, December 20, 2006.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:
    Docket Numbers: PH07-7-000.
    Applicants: Constellation Energy Group Inc.
    Description: Constellation Energy Group, Inc. submits a Notice of
Waiver pursuant to Section 366.4(c)(1) of PUHCA 2005.
    Filed Date: 11/30/2006.
    Accession Number: 20061130-5059.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 21, 2006.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERCOnline service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21091 Filed 12-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67541-67542]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0167]
RIN 2126-AB20

Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting
Documents; Research Report on Attitudes of Truck Drivers and Carriers
on the Use of Electronic Logging Devices and Driver Harassment

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Research Report.

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

SUMMARY: On March 28, 2014, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (SNPRM) that proposed amendments to the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to establish: Minimum performance
and design standards for hours-of-service (HOS) electronic logging
devices (ELDs); requirements for the mandatory use of these devices by
drivers currently required to prepare HOS records of duty status
(RODS); requirements concerning HOS supporting documents; and measures
to address concerns about harassment resulting from the mandatory use
of ELDs. FMCSA announces the availability of a new report: ``Attitudes
of Truck Drivers and Carriers on the Use of Electronic Logging Devices
and Driver Harassment.'' This project surveyed drivers on their
attitudes regarding carrier harassment and examined whether reported
harassment experiences varied due to the hours-of-service logging
method used by the driver. The survey is an effort to further address
the potential for harassment associated with ELDs and provides results
that are consistent with the Agency's discussion of harassment in the
ELD SNPRM. A copy of the report has been placed in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.

DATES: Comments must be received by December 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2010-0167 addressing the Research Report using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
report, please contact Mr. Albert Alvarez, Research Division of the
Office of Analysis, Research, and Technology, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials pertaining to the report. This notice does not extend
the earlier comment period pertaining to the ELD SNPRM published March
28, 2104.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2010-0167), indicate the specific section of the report
to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion
or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or
by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number, ``FMCSA-2010-0167'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen

appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button and type your comment into
the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting
your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then
submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period pertaining to the report.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as other documents available in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number,
``FMCSA-2010-0167'' in the ``Keyword'' box and click ``Search.'' Next,
click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document listed
to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. The Research Report

    This research report, titled, ``Attitudes of Truck Drivers and
Carriers on the Use of Electronic Logging Devices and Driver
Harassment,'' examines the nature of harassment as viewed by truck
drivers who are required to record their hours of service for the
purposes of Federal reporting regulations. As it examines their
perceptions, this research also reviews:
     Whether drivers' experiences and interactions with their
carriers fall into the category of harassment.
     If these experiences occur with any regularity (once or
twice a month or more).
     Whether these interactions are made possible as a result
of the carrier using HOS data collected via an ELD and whether it was a
standalone ELD or part of a comprehensive system that included ELD
capability.
    These experiences and perceptions are reviewed both for truck
drivers and for carrier personnel who manage truck drivers. The data
collected from carrier personnel is similar to that collected from the
drivers; that is, carriers were asked about the regularity of specific
interactions with drivers at their firm, and whether the drivers might
consider such actions (if they occur) harassment.
    Drivers are analyzed according to the systems they used for logging
their HOS (i.e., paper or ELD). Carrier personnel are also considered
according to the primary HOS logging method used by their company.
    Additional data was collected regarding attitudes about ELDs,
reactions to definitions of harassment and coercion developed by the
FMCSA, ways in which drivers are compensated and evaluated, and
profiles of both the drivers and the carrier companies.
    For the complete report, visit docket number FMCSA-2010-0167 or
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/research-and-analysis/publications.

    Issued on: November 5, 2014.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-26851 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: May 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 86)]
[Notices]
[Page 24329-24332]
[DOCID:fr02my08-138]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57716; File No. SR-CBOE-2007-39]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 and Order Granting
Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2 Thereto, Regarding Penny Price Improvement

April 25, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On April 24, 2007, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend its rules regarding
price improvement for options not currently quoted in one-cent
increments. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on May 14, 2007.\3\ The Commission received two
comment letters in response to the proposed rule change.\4\ On March
25, 2008, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to make certain
modifications to the original rule filing. On March 28, 2008, the
Exchange withdrew Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change and
simultaneously filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposal. This order
provides notice of the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, and approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55724 (May 8, 2007),
72 FR 27156.
    \4\ See letter to Nancy Morris, Secretary, Commission, from John
C. Nagel, Director & Associate General Counsel, Citadel, dated June
4, 2007 (``Citadel Letter'') and letter to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Commission, from Michael J. Simon, Secretary,
International Securities Exchange, LLC, dated June 1, 2007 (``ISE
Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Proposed CBOE Rule 6.13B will expand the ability of Exchange users
to effect transactions in penny increments in classes and/or series
trading on CBOE's Hybrid System that are not currently quoting in penny
increments.\5\ The Exchange will designate the classes/series eligible
for this penny pricing, and the penny pricing will be available
electronically and in open outcry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Amendment No. 2 clarified that the program will not apply to
Hybrid 3.0 classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, all limit orders or quotes electronically sent to CBOE
(regardless of sender origin type) can be priced in a one-cent
increment. Specifically, an Exchange Market-Maker can provide the
Exchange with indications to trade in one-cent increments that improve
on the Market-Maker's disseminated quotation. Such indications of
interest will be firm for all interest received by the Exchange.
Further, all other users can electronically submit orders priced in
one-cent increments. The Exchange will round the limit price to the
nearest permissible quoted increment for display purposes, but will
maintain the one-cent increment limit price for trade execution and
allocation purposes.\6\ To the extent there is trading interest from
multiple sources at the same one-cent increment price, priority will be
established in the same manner as priority at a standard quoting
increment (i.e., normal allocation procedures will be used). The
Exchange has represented that the system will not execute an order at a
price that would cause a trade-through of another options exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, if the CBOE market is 1-1.20 and an order is
received to buy 10 contracts at 1.08, CBOE would disseminate a 1.05
bid for 10 contracts, and any subsequent sell market order received
by the Exchange would trade at 1.08 for up to 10 contracts (after
that, the quote would revert back to 1-1.20).
    Amendment No. 2 deletes a provision in the original filing that
would have allowed the Exchange to append an indicator to the OPRA
quote representing the existence of penny pricing. Additionally, in
Amendment No. 2, the Exchange represents that the size and price of
any penny pricing will not be displayed or made available to anyone
(other than the size that is added to the Exchange's BBO to reflect
the size of rounded, penny-priced orders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to open outcry, crowd members will be able to provide
price improvement in one-cent increments over the Exchange's Best Bid
or Offer (``BBO''). The Exchange has represented that any resulting
trade will not cause a trade-through of another options exchange.
Further, prior to executing any order in open outcry in a one-cent
increment, Exchange members will be required to electronically
``sweep'' any penny pricing interest on the book that may exist.\7\ The
``sweep'' is designed to ensure that better-priced orders resting in
one-cent increments are executed prior to the open outcry transaction
and

that same priced orders receive executions consistent with existing
rules governing priority of orders in the Hybrid book when trading with
an order represented in open outcry.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Open outcry penny pricing generally will be available in
instances where a Floor Broker is attempting to cross an order
pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.74, except it will not be available in those
instances where: (i) A Floor Broker is attempting to cross orders
during the opening rotation in open outcry (see CBOE Rule 6.74(c));
or (ii) a Floor Broker is utilizing the Exchange's SizeQuote
Mechanism (see CBOE Rule 6.74(f)).
    \8\ See CBOE Rules 6.45A(b) and 6.45B(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that, in activated classes/series, all
users would receive the benefit of penny pricing either through the
electronic submission of contra-side orders or through a Floor Broker
``sweeping'' the electronic interest prior to executing an order in
open outcry, and that all market participants will have the ability to
rest orders in penny increments under the program.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange clarified in Amendment No. 2 that, to the extent
penny-priced orders are received that ``cross'' one another, the second
order received by the system will receive the benefit of price
improvement.\10\ The Exchange may determine the applicability of split-
price priority under CBOE Rule 6.47 to transactions effected under
proposed CBOE Rule 6.13B.\11\ The mechanics of split-price priority in
those instances will be the same as the mechanics of split-price
priority in five- and ten-cent increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For example, if an order is received to buy at 1.08 and
then an order is received to sell at 1.06, those orders will trade
at 1.08--the price of the resting order.
    \11\ Amendment No. 2 provided that the ``Exchange'' will
determine if the split price provisions of Rule 6.47 apply to open
outcry Penny Pricing under proposed Rule 6.13B(b), rather than the
``appropriate Procedure Committee,'' as originally proposed. The
Commission notes that this change is consistent with SR-CBOE-2008-
02, where the Exchange is replacing references to the ``appropriate
Procedure Committee'' with references to the ``Exchange'' throughout
the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The restrictions on principal transactions and solicited orders
contained in Interpretations and Policies .01 and .02 under CBOE Rules
6.45A and 6.45B will continue to apply to trading in penny increments,
including the three second exposure requirements.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposal, as modified by Amendment No.
2, and the comment letters thereto, the Commission finds that the
proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\12\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\13\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Quote Rule

    The Commission received two comment letters in response to the
proposed rule change.\14\ One commenter argues that the proposal would
violate Rule 602 of Regulation NMS (the ``Quote Rule'') because CBOE
will not disseminate its best bid or offer.\15\ The Quote Rule requires
a national securities exchange to collect, process, and make available
to vendors the best bid, the best offer, and aggregate quotation sizes
for each subject security that is communicated on any national
securities exchange by a responsible broker or dealer. A ``bid'' or
``offer'' is defined as ``the bid price or the offer price communicated
by a member of a national securities exchange or member of a national
securities association to any broker or dealer, or to any customer. * *
*.'' \16\ Because the non-displayed price of a penny-priced order under
Rule 6.13B is sent to the Exchange, but not communicated to anyone, it
is not a bid, offer, or quotation. Thus, the Quote Rule does not
require this information to be disseminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ISE Letter and Citadel Letter, supra note 4. Both
commenters expressed concern about CBOE's proposal to append an
indicator showing when there is trading interest at a price that is
better than the CBOE BBO. As noted above, Amendment No. 2 deleted
this aspect of the proposal. Because CBOE has proposed to eliminate
the indicator, this order does not make any findings with respect to
the use of an indicator.
    \15\ See ISE Letter, supra note 4, at 2-3.
    \16\ 17 CFR 242.600(a)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Quote Rule also requires responsible brokers and dealers to be
firm for their quotes.\17\ Proposed CBOE Rule 6.13B(1), which allows
Market Makers to provide the Exchange with indications of interest that
are superior to their own quotations in increments no smaller than one-
cent, explicitly requires such indications to be firm for all interest
received by the Exchange. Further, as with any other electronic order
entered into CBOE's Hybrid System, an order priced in a penny increment
and rounded for display must be firm under CBOE's rules and Rule 602 of
Regulation NMS.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 17 CFR 242.602(b)(2) and (c)(3).
    \18\ See electronic mail between Angelo Evangelou, Assistant
General Counsel, CBOE, and Johnna B. Dumler, Special Counsel,
Division of Trading and Markets, Commission, on April 22, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Transparency, Quote Competition, and Internalization

    Both commenters expressed concern about the impact of penny pricing
on market quality. In particular, one commenter believes such orders
would undermine transparency in the options markets and that, because
the prices and sizes of such orders would not be disseminated, it would
be impossible for market participants to know the true best trading
interest on CBOE.\19\ This commenter argues that penny pricing would
discourage market participants from matching or establishing a new BBO
because it would be too easy for non-displayed penny orders to jump
ahead of displayed orders by a penny at opportune moments.\20\ Another
commenter expresses a concern that no one will know the actual prices
communicated to the exchange, which are prices at which transactions
can take place.\21\ This commenter expressed concern that if other
options markets adopted similar order types, there would be a trading
environment in which there would be no way for customers to make
intelligent pricing decisions or for broker-dealers to fulfill their
best execution obligations.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 4, at 2. This commenter
further believes that the concerns raised by hidden penny pricing
exceed those raised by the auction facilities on other options
exchanges (including the Boston Options Exchange's PIP and the
International Securities Exchange's PIM) because penny pricing would
be a fundamental component of options trading on CBOE rather than a
separate auction facility operating parallel to the regular options
market. Id.
    \20\ Id.
    \21\ See ISE Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, one commenter expressed the concern that hidden penny
pricing will enable CBOE members to internalize their order flow
without the possibility of real order interaction. This commenter
argues that the purpose of the requirement that a member display a
customer order and wait three seconds before trading against the order
is to provide other market participants with a chance to trade with the
order before the member internalizes it. The commenter argues that,
because only the member that enters the penny priced order will know
the true price of the order, only that member can accurately run its
pricing model to determine whether it is economically viable to trade
against the

order. The commenter does not believe this presents a level playing
field.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Penny priced orders will allow market participants to submit an
order priced between the minimum price variation (``MPV'') that will be
rounded to the nearest MPV for display. Without the ability to price
orders in pennies, market participants would not be able to submit
orders priced between the MPV. Instead, orders, if submitted, would be
priced (and displayed) at the MPV. Thus, CBOE's proposal will not
``take away'' transparency that would already exist. The Commission
recognizes that under CBOE's proposal, orders will not be displayed at
their actual penny price. CBOE's proposal, however, will provide
investors with the opportunity to trade at a better price than would
otherwise be available. The Commission believes that this opportunity
for investors to receive executions inside the disseminated best bid or
offer could result in better executions for investors.
    In response to a commenter's concern about broker-dealers' ability
to fulfill their best execution obligations,\24\ as just discussed, the
Commission believes that penny-priced orders likely will provide
another opportunity for investors to receive executions inside the
disseminated best bid or offer for a security, which could result in
better executions for investors. The availability of this price
improvement feature will be a factor to be considered in a broker-
dealer's best execution routing determination, similar to other factors
a broker-dealer must consider in connection with its best execution
obligation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See ISE Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \25\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-
004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080), at notes 130 to 134 and accompanying
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that penny-priced orders will provide
market participants with an additional tool to submit trading interest
to the Exchange. The ability to price orders in penny increments may
serve to increase liquidity to the extent that market participants find
it to be useful and result in better executions. Further, market
participants may be incented to compete by putting forth their best
price--priced in a penny increment--to potentially match or better any
other penny-priced orders resident in the System. This may result in
more aggressive, rather than less aggressive, trading interest.
    Moreover, the Commission believes that the ability to ``fish''
inside the displayed quote, coupled with the restriction on the market
participant that initially submitted the penny-priced order from
trading with that order until after three seconds has elapsed, will
provide a meaningful opportunity for interaction prior to the time at
which the submitting market participant can interact with the order.
The Commission also notes that a market participant that would like to
trade against its customer order runs the risk that the customer order,
if entered in a hidden penny increment, will execute against another
penny-priced order resident in the system. The Commission does not
believe that the availability and use of penny-priced orders will
reduce the quality or competitiveness of the options markets by
increasing the level of internalization in the options markets.

C. Linkage Plan

    One commenter expresses concern as to how hidden penny-priced
orders will interact with the requirements of the Plan for the Purpose
of Creating and Operating an Intermarket Options Linkage (``Linkage
Plan'').\26\ Specifically, the commenter expresses concern that,
because the existence of hidden penny orders would not be disseminated
to the market, they would not trigger the obligations of other market
centers to ship linkage orders to the CBOE.\27\ Therefore, the
commenter believes that away-markets will not be able to benefit from
the better prices available on the CBOE, and undisplayed orders resting
on the CBOE book would not be protected from trade-throughs by away
markets.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \27\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 4, at 2.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Linkage Plan, and SRO rules adopted pursuant to the Plan,
provide trade through protection to the national best bid and offer
(``NBBO'').\29\ The NBBO will not include the non-displayed price of a
CBOE penny-priced order under Rule 6.13B. Therefore, the non-displayed
price of a penny-priced order is not subject to trade through
protection under the Linkage Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The national best bid or offer is defined in the Linkage
Plan as the national best bid and offer in an options series
calculated by a Participant. See Section 2(19) of the Linkage Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Penny Pilot Program

    One commenter believes that the proposal will circumvent the
industry efforts with respect to the Penny Pilot Program (``Pilot'') by
moving to hidden penny quoting without the benefit of careful study of
the data yielded in the Pilot.\30\ Another commenter believes that the
appropriate way to address penny pricing in options is through the
current Penny Pilot. This commenter recommends that the Commission
consider any expansion of penny quoting only through review of the
experience under the Pilot.\31\ As discussed above, the Commission
finds that CBOE's proposal, as amended, is consistent with the Act. The
Commission has previously approved proposals by options exchanges,
including CBOE, to trade in penny increments.\32\ The Commission does
not believe itis appropriate to prohibit CBOE from implementing an
initiative designed to allow further limited trading, not quoting, in
penny increments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Citadel Letter, supra note 4, at 1 and 3.
    \31\ See ISE Letter, supra note 4, at 3.
    \32\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 54229 (July
27, 2006), 71 FR 44508 August 3, 2006) (File No. SR-CBOE-2005-90)
(order approving CBOE's Simple Auction Liaison system); 50819
(December 8, 2004), 69 FR 75093 (December 15, 2004) File No. SR-ISE-
2003-06) (order approving ISE's Price Improvement Mechanism); and
49068 (January 13, 2004), 69 FR 2775 (January 20, 2004) (order
approving BOX's Price Improvement Period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, prior to the thirtieth day
after the date of publication of the notice of filing of the amended
proposal in the Federal Register. The substance of the proposed rule
change was published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2007 for full
notice and comment.\33\ The Commission believes that the changes
proposed in Amendment No. 2 respond to concerns raised in the commenter
letters and strengthen and clarify aspects of the proposal. Further,
the Commission recently approved a similar proposal by another exchange
that allows orders to be entered in one-cent increments, but displayed
at the standard MPV.\34\ For these reasons, the Commission finds good
cause for approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment
No. 2, on an accelerated basis, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See supra note 3.
    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-
004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2
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 No. SR-CBOE-2007-39 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2007-39. 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 at http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2007-39 and should be
submitted on or before May 23, 2008.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\35\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2007-39), as modified
by Amendment No. 2, be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-9645 Filed 5-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 42 (Friday, March 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13392-13394]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03781]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0936; FRL-10470-01-R9]

Clean Air Plans; 2015 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area
Requirements; Clean Fuels for Fleets; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
concerning the provisions for Clean Fuels for Fleets (CFF) for the 2015
ozone national ambient air quality standards (``2015 ozone NAAQS'') in
the Riverside County (Coachella Valley), Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin
Valley, Los Angeles--South Coast Air Basin (South Coast), Ventura
County, and Los Angeles--San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert)
nonattainment areas (NAAs). The SIP revisions include the ``California
Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for the 70 ppb Ozone Standard''
(``Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification'') submitted on February 3,
2022. We are proposing to approve these revisions under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or ``the Act''), which establishes clean fuels for fleets
requirements for ``Serious,'' ``Severe,'' and ``Extreme'' ozone NAAs.

DATES: Written comments must arrive on or before April 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0936 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
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 its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. 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, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English or if you are a person with a disability
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Ledezma, Air Planning Office
(ARD-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 972-3985, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP
Revisions
    B. Requirements for Clean Fuels for Fleets
III. Summary of the State's Submittal
    A. Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions
    B. Summary of State Submittal
IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittal
    A. Evaluation of Procedural Requirements
    B. Evaluation of Requirements for Clean Fuels for Fleets
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On October 26, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ In accordance with section
107(d) of the CAA, the EPA must designate an area ``nonattainment'' if
it is violating the NAAQS or if it is contributing to a violation of
the NAAQS in a nearby area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA designated 21 areas in California as nonattainment for the
2015 ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018, effective August 3, 2018.\2\ Amador
County, Calaveras County, Butte County, Imperial County, Mariposa
County,\3\ San Francisco Bay Area, San Luis Obispo (Eastern part),
Sutter Buttes, Tuolumne County, and Tuscan Buttes NAAs were classified
as Marginal nonattainment. Kern County (Eastern Kern), Nevada County
(Western part), Sacramento Metro,\4\ and San Diego County \5\ NAAs were
classified as Moderate nonattainment. The EPA classified the Ventura
County NAA as Serious nonattainment. The EPA classified the Los
Angeles-San Bernardino Counties (West Mojave Desert) and Riverside
County (Coachella Valley) NAAs as Severe nonattainment. The EPA
classified both the San Joaquin Valley and the South Coast NAAs as
Extreme nonattainment. The EPA designated the lands of the Pechanga
Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation \6\
and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians as separate NAAs and classified
them as Marginal and Serious nonattainment, respectively. The State of
California does not have regulatory authority on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
    \3\ On April 13, 2022, the EPA reclassified Mariposa from
Marginal to Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (87 FR 21842).
    \4\ On October 28, 2021, the EPA reclassified Kern County
(Eastern Kern), Nevada County (Western part) and Sacramento Metro
from Moderate to Serious for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (86 FR 59648).
    \5\ On April 8, 2021, the EPA reclassified San Diego from
Moderate to Severe for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (86 FR 18227).
    \6\ On April 13, 2022, the EPA reclassified the lands of the
Pechanga Band Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians of the Pechanga
Reservation from Marginal to Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (87
FR 21842).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sections 182(c)(4) \7\ and 246 of the CAA provide that SIPs for
Serious, Severe, and Extreme ozone nonattainment areas with 1980
populations greater than 250,000 must require at least a specified
percentage of all new covered fleet vehicles in model year 1998 and
thereafter, purchased by each covered fleet operator in each covered
area, to be clean-fuel vehicles and use clean alternative fuels when
operating in the covered area.\8\ Sections

182(c)(4) and 246 of the CAA also require states to submit to the EPA a
plan revision addressing this requirement within 42 months after the
effective date of the designation and classification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ CAA section 182(c)(4) establishes the requirements for
clean-fuel vehicle programs in Serious NAAs. CAA sections 182(d) and
182(e) require the same for Severe and Extreme NAAs, respectively.
    \8\ CAA section 241(2) defines clean alternative fuels as any
fuel, including methanol, ethanol, or other alcohols (including any
mixture thereof containing 85 percent or more by volume of such
alcohol with gasoline or other fuels), reformulated gasoline,
diesel, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and hydrogen) or power
source (including electricity). CAA section 241(7) defines a clean
fuel vehicle as one that has been certified to meet the relevant
light and heavy-duty truck exhaust standards in CAA sections 243 and
245, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 3, 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted SIP revisions to the EPA for multiple nonattainment areas to
fulfill requirements under section 182(c)(4) and section 246 of the CAA
requiring clean fuels for fleets in nonattainment areas. In this
action, we are evaluating and proposing action on the submittal for CFF
for six nonattainment areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000
in California, and that are classified as Serious, Severe, or Extreme--
the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South
Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CARB's submittal does not include the San Diego County NAA,
which was submitted separately on January 12, 2021, as a part of the
``2020 Plan for Attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Ozone in San Diego County.'' The EPA will act on the CFF
requirement for the San Diego County NAA in a separate rulemaking.
CARB's submittal also does not include Kern County (Eastern Kern)
and Nevada County (Western part) because neither area exceeds the
population threshold that is prescribed in the Act to require
implementation of the CFF Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Procedural Requirements for Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions

    CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) and 40 CFR 51.102 require states
to provide reasonable opportunity for a public hearing prior to
adoption of SIP revisions. Section 110(k)(1)(B) requires the EPA to
determine whether a SIP submittal is complete within 60 days of
receipt. Any plan that the EPA does not affirmatively determine to be
complete or incomplete will become complete six months after the day of
submittal by operation of law. A finding of completeness does not
approve the submittal as part of the SIP, nor does it indicate that the
submittal is approvable. It does start a 12-month clock for the EPA to
act on the SIP submittal (see CAA section 110(k)(2)).

B. Requirements for Clean Fuels for Fleets

    As described in section I of this document, CAA section 182(c)(4)
and 246 provide that SIPs for Serious, Severe, and Extreme
nonattainment areas with 1980 populations greater than 250,000 require
that at least a specified percentage of all new covered fleet vehicles
in model year 1998 and thereafter, purchased by each covered fleet
operator in each covered area, be clean-fuel vehicles and use clean
alternative fuels when operating in the covered area.
    Additional guidance on this requirement is provided in CAA section
182(c)(4)(B). According to CAA section 182(c)(4)(B), any revision to
the relevant applicable implementation plan that in the Administrator's
judgment will achieve long-term reductions in ozone-producing and toxic
air emissions equal to those achieved under section 246 of the CAA, or
the percentage thereof attributable to the portion of the clean-fuel
vehicle program for which the revision is to substitute, can substitute
for all or a portion of the clean-fuel vehicle program described under
part C of title II of the Act.
    According to the EPA's ``Guidance for Fulfilling the Clean Fuels
for Fleets Requirement of the Clean Air Act,'' \10\ the substitute
measure(s) must achieve long-term reductions in ozone precursor
emissions equal to those achieved through the CFF Program. A state
could submit a SIP revision implementing substitute measures that
achieve emissions reductions that are equal or greater than those
achieved by implementing a CFF Program, with the understanding that any
new light- or heavy-duty vehicle purchased by a fleet owner is deemed
to also meet the CAA emissions standards for ultra-low emission CFF
vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA, ``EPA's Guidance for Fulfilling the Clean Fuel Fleets
Requirement of the Clean Air Act,'' EPA-420-B-22-027, June 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of the State's Submittal

A. Adoption and Submittal of SIP Revisions

    The submittal package (``2022 CARB SIP submittal'') contains the
Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification, a multi-district certification
that the existing CFF programs in the Coachella Valley, Sacramento
Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave
Desert NAAs meet the CFF requirements under the 2015 ozone
standard.\11\ The 2022 CARB SIP submittal includes a cover letter to
the EPA dated February 3, 2022; \12\ signed Resolution 22-1, dated
January 27, 2022,\13\ demonstrating that CARB adopted the
certification; a copy of the notice of public hearing held on January
27, 2022,\14\ consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102; and a SIP
completeness checklist.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ CARB, ``California Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for
the 70 ppb Ozone Standard,'' dated December 17, 2021.
    \12\ Letter dated February 3, 2022, from Richard W. Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region IX.
    \13\ CARB Resolution 22-1, ``California Clean Fuels for Fleets
Certification for the 70 ppb Ozone Standard,'' January 27, 2022.
    \14\ CARB, ``Notice of Public Meeting to Consider the Proposed
California Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for the 70 ppb Ozone
Standard,'' dated December 17, 2021.
    \15\ CARB, ``Completeness Checklist for SIP Revision.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Summary of State Submittal

    In the Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification, CARB states that in
1994, it submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt out of the CFF
Program. The Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification includes a
demonstration that California's Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) program
achieved emissions reductions at least equivalent to the reductions
that would be achieved by the EPA's CFF Program. CARB also states that
California's LEV program established regulations that created tiers of
exhaust emissions standards for increasingly more stringent categories
of LEVs, a mechanism requiring each auto manufacturer to phase-in a
progressively cleaner mix of vehicles from year to year with the option
of credit banking and trading, and a requirement that a specified
percentage of passenger cars and light-duty trucks be zero-emission
vehicles with no exhaust or evaporative emissions. The Clean Fuels for
Fleets Certification also indicates that the EPA approved the
California SIP revision to opt out of the CFF Program effective
September 27, 1999.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 64 FR 46849 (August 27, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB also stated in the submittal that the State has continued to
strengthen emissions requirements in its LEV program, adopting LEV II
\17\ standards in 1998 and LEV III \18\ standards in 2012. CARB also
certified in its Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification that California's
LEV program qualifies as a substitute for the EPA program and satisfies
Sections 182(c)(4) and 246 of the Act for the 0.070 ppm ozone standard
for the Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South
Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the LEV II and CAP 2000 Regulatory Documents web page,
available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/levii/levii.htm.
    \18\ See the LEV III and GHG 2012 Regulatory Documents web page,
available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/leviiighg2012.htm.

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

IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the State's Submittal

A. Evaluation of Procedural Requirements

    Based on the documentation included in the 2022 CARB SIP submittal,
the EPA finds that the submittal satisfies the procedural requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(l) of the Act, requiring states to
provide reasonable notice and an opportunity for public hearing prior
to adoption of SIP revisions. CARB's submittal became complete by
operation of law on August 3, 2022, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B).

B. Evaluation of Requirements for Clean Fuels for Fleets

    The EPA has reviewed the Clean Fuels for Fleets Certification for
consistency with sections 182(c)(4) and 246 of the CAA. As explained in
section II of this document, Section 182(c)(4)(B) of the CAA allows
states to opt out of the federal CFF Program by submitting a SIP
revision consisting of a program or programs that will result in
equivalent or greater long-term reductions in ozone precursors and
toxic air emissions as that which is prescribed under section 246 of
the CAA. We agree with the 2022 CARB SIP Submittal that in 1994, CARB
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA to opt out of the federal CFF
Program. The submittal included a demonstration that California's LEV
program achieved emissions reductions at least as large as would be
achieved by the federal program. The EPA approved the SIP revision to
opt out of the federal program on August 27, 1999.\19\ There have been
no changes to the federal CFF Program since the EPA approved the
California SIP revision to opt out of the federal program, and thus, no
corresponding changes to the SIP are required. The EPA finds that
California has continued to adopt and implement increasingly stringent
versions of the LEV program. Therefore, new vehicles must be certified
to emissions standards that are significantly more stringent than the
CFF Program. Thus, we find that the California SIP revision to opt out
of the federal program, as approved in 1999, meets the requirements of
CAA sections 182(c)(4)(A) and 246 and the EPA's ``Guidance for
Fulfilling the Clean Fuel Fleets Requirement of the Clean Air Act'' for
Coachella Valley, Sacramento Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast,
Ventura County, and West Mojave Desert NAAs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 64 FR 46849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed in this document, under CAA section
110(k)(3), the EPA is proposing to find that the 2022 CARB SIP
submittal meets the requirements of CAA sections 182(c)(4) and 246 for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to the Coachella Valley, Sacramento
Metro, San Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Ventura County, and West Mojave
Desert NAAs.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994) of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: February 16, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2023-03781 Filed 3-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P