[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16574-16579]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6765]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66609; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-024]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating to Telemarketing Rules

March 15, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 2, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9.24, Telephone Solicitation,
to revise and add provisions that are substantially similar to Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') rules that prohibit deceptive and other
abusive telemarketing acts or practices.\3\ The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The proposed rule change is substantially similar in all
material respects to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') Rule 3230 (Telemarketing), which the Commission recently
approved. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66279 (Jan. 30,
2012), 77 FR 5611 (Feb. 3, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2011-059) (approval order
of proposed rule change to adopt telemarketing rule). The proposed
rule change amends the name of Rule 9.24 from Telephone Solicitation
to Telemarketing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9.24, Telephone
Solicitation,\4\ to revise and add provisions that are substantially
similar to FTC rules that prohibit deceptive and other abusive
telemarketing acts or practices.\5\ Rule 9.24 requires Trading Permit
Holders to, among other things, maintain do-not-call lists, limit the
hours of telephone solicitations, and not use deceptive and abusive
acts and practices in connection with telemarketing. The Commission
directed CBOE to enact these telemarketing rules in accordance with the
Telemarketing Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act of 1994
(``Prevention Act'').\6\ The Prevention Act requires the Commission to
promulgate, or direct any national securities exchange or registered
securities association to promulgate, rules substantially similar to
the FTC rules \7\ to prohibit deceptive and other abusive telemarketing
acts or practices, unless the Commission determines either that the
rules are not necessary or appropriate for the protection of investors
or the maintenance of orderly markets, or that existing federal
securities laws or Commission rules already provide for such
protection.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange adopted Rule 9.24, effective December 13, 2005,
in response to the recommendations of an industry task force,
comprised of representatives from various industry regulatory and
self-regulatory organizations, formed to review broker-dealer
telemarketing practices and compliance with the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (``TCPA''), 47 U.S.C. 227, as well as with
Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') rules and regulations
that implemented the TCPA. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
36588 (Dec. 13, 1995), 60 FR 65703 (Dec. 20, 21995) (SR-CBOE-1995-
063) (order approving adoption of Rule 9.24).
    \5\ The proposed rule change also amends Appendix A to the CBOE
Stock Exchange, LLC (``CBSX'') Rules to explicitly incorporate
proposed Rule 9.24 CBSX Rules. CBSX is a stock trading facility of
CBOE.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 6101-6108.
    \7\ 16 CFR 310.1-.9. The FTC adopted these rules under the
Prevention Act in 1995. See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing
Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 6102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, the Commission determined that telemarketing rules
promulgated and expected to be promulgated by self-regulatory
organizations, together with the other rules of the self-regulatory
organizations, the federal securities laws and the Commission's rules
thereunder, satisfied the requirements of the Prevention Act because,
at the time, the applicable provisions of those laws and rules were
substantially similar to the FTC's telemarketing rules.\9\ CBOE amended
Rule 9.24 at that time in response to the Commission's
determination.\10\ Since 1997, the FTC has amended its telemarketing
rules in light of changing telemarketing practices and technology.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention
Act; Determination that No Additional Rulemaking Required,
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38480 (Apr. 7, 1997), 62 FR
18666 (Apr. 16, 1996). The Commission also determined that some
provisions of the FTC's telemarketing rules related to areas already
extensively regulated by existing securities laws or activities not
applicable to securities transactions See id.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 39010 (Sept. 3,
1997), 62 FR 47712 (Sept. 10, 1997) (SR-CBOE-1997-039) (order
granting accelerated approval of amendments to Rule 9.24).
    \11\ See, e.g., Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales
Rule, 73 FR 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008) (amendments to the Telemarketing
Sales Rule relating to prerecorded messages and call abandonments);
and Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580
(Jan. 29, 2003) (amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule
establishing requirements for sellers and telemarketers to
participate in the national do-not-call registry).

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

    As mentioned above, the Prevention Act requires the Commission to
promulgate, or direct any national securities exchange or registered
securities association to promulgate, rules substantially similar to
the FTC rules to prohibit deceptive and other abusive telemarketing
acts or practices.\12\ In May 2011, Commission staff directed CBOE to
conduct a review of its telemarketing rule and propose rule amendments
that provide protections that are at least as strong as those provided
by the FTC's telemarketing rules.\13\ Commission staff had concerns
``that the [self-regulatory organization] rules overall have not kept
pace with the FTC's rules, and thus may no longer meet the standards of
the [Prevention] Act.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See supra note 8.
    \13\ See Letter from Robert W. Cook, Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, to William
J. Brodsky, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CBOE Holdings,
Inc. (May 12, 2011).
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change, as directed by the Commission staff,
amends and adopts provisions in Rule 9.24 that are substantially
similar to the FTC's current rules that prohibit deceptive and other
abusive telemarketing acts or practices as described below.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The proposed rule change is also substantially similar to
FINRA Rule 3230. See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Telemarketing Restrictions

    The proposed rule change amends the telemarketing restrictions in
Rule 9.24(a) to provide that no Trading Permit Holder or associated
person \16\ may make an outbound telephone call \17\ to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ An ``associated person'' is any partner, officer, director,
or branch manager of a Trading Permit Holder (or any person
occupying a similar status or performing similar functions), any
person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with a Trading Permit Holder, or any employee of a
Trading Permit Holder. See Rule 1.1(qq).
    \17\ An ``outbound telephone call'' is a telephone call
initiated by a telemarketer to induce the purchase of goods or
services or to solicit a charitable contribution from a donor. A
``telemarketer'' is any person who, in connection with
telemarketing, initiates or receives telephone calls to or from a
customer or donor. A ``customer'' is any person who is or may be
required to pay for goods or services through telemarketing. A
``donor'' means any person solicited to make a charitable
contribution. A ``person'' is any individual, group, unincorporated
association, limited or general partnership, corporation, or other
business entity. ``Telemarketing'' means consisting of or relating
to a plan, program, or campaign involving at least one outbound
telephone call, for example cold-calling. The term does not include
the solicitation of sales through the mailing of written marketing
materials, when the person making the solicitation does not solicit
customers by telephone but only receives calls initiated by
customers in response to the marketing materials and during those
calls takes orders only without further solicitation. For purposes
of the previous sentence, the term ``further solicitation'' does not
include providing the customer with information about, or attempting
to sell, anything promoted in the same marketing materials that
prompted the customer's call. A ``charitable contribution'' means
any donation or gift of money or any other thing of value, for
example a transfer to a pooled income fund. See proposed Rule
9.24(n)(3), (11), (16), (17), (20), and (21); see also FINRA Rule
3230(m)(11), (14), (16), (17), and (20); and 16 CFR 310.2(f), (l),
(n), (v), (w), (cc), and (dd).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Any person's residence at any time other than between 8 a.m.
and 9 p.m. local time at the called person's locations;
    (2) Any person that previously has stated that he or she does not
wish to receive any outbound telephone calls made by or on behalf of
the Trading Permit Holder;\18\ or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ This restriction was previously included under Rule
9.24(d). See the discussion below under Item 3(a), Trading Permit
Holder's Firm-Specific Do-Not-Call List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Any person who has registered his or her telephone number on
the FTC's national do-not-call registry.

The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's
provisions regarding abusive telemarketing acts or practices.\19\ The
FTC provided a discussion of the provision when it was adopted pursuant
to the Prevention Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A) and (B) and (c); see also
FINRA Rule 3230(a). The proposed rule change also deletes language
in Rule 9.24(a) regarding the purpose of an outbound telephone call
and the definition of telemarketing, which are now included in the
proposed definitions of those terms. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(16)
and (21) and supra note 17. In addition, the proposed rule change
amends Rule 9.24(a) to delete an exception to the telemarketing
restriction that permits outbound telephone calls to a person with
the person's prior consent and moves that exception to proposed Rule
9.24(c). See the discussion below under Item 3(a), Exceptions.
    \20\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68
FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4628; and Federal Trade Commission,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995) at 43855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caller Disclosures

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 9.24(b) to delete the phrase
``for the purpose of telemarketing,'' which concept is included in the
proposed definition of ``outbound telephone call.'' \21\ The proposed
rule change also provides that the telephone number that a caller
provides to a person as the number at which the caller may be contacted
may not be a 900 number or any other number for which charges exceed
local or long-distance transmission charges.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(16) and supra note 17.
    \22\ See proposed Rule 9.24(b); see also FINRA Rule 3230(d)(4).
The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FCC's
regulations regarding call disclosures. See 47 CFR 64.1200(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exceptions

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 9.24(c) to provide that the
prohibition in paragraph (a)(1) \23\ does not apply to outbound
telephone calls by a Trading Permit Holder or an associated person if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The proposed rule change amends Rule 9.24(c) to provide
that the exception in that paragraph will apply only to the
prohibition in proposed paragraph (a)(1) and will no longer apply to
the requirement in paragraph (b) regarding caller disclosures. The
Exchange believes that even if a Trading Permit Holder satisfies the
exception in paragraph (c), the Trading Permit Holder should still
make the caller disclosures required by paragraph (b) to the called
person to ensure that the called person receives sufficient
information regarding the purpose of the call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Trading Permit Holder has received that person's express
prior written consent;
    (2) The Trading Permit Holder has an established business
relationship \24\ with the person; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ An ``established business relationship'' is a relationship
between a Trading Permit Holder and a person if (a) the person has
made a financial transaction or has a security position, a money
balance, or account activity with the Trading Permit Holder or at a
clearing firm that provides clearing services to the Trading Permit
Holder within the 18 months immediately preceding the date of an
outbound telephone call; (b) the Trading Permit Holder is the
broker-dealer of record for an account of the person within the 18
months immediately preceding the date of an outbound telephone call;
or (c) the person has contacted the Trading Permit Holder to inquire
about a product or service offered by the Trading Permit Holder
within the three months immediately preceding the date of an
outbound telephone call. A person's established business
relationship with a Trading Permit Holder does not extend to the
Trading Permit Holder's affiliated entities unless the person would
reasonably expect them to be included. Similarly, a person's
established business relationship with a Trading Permit Holder's
affiliate does not extend to the Trading Permit Holder unless the
person would reasonably expect the Trading Permit Holder to be
included. The term ``account activity'' includes, but is not limited
to, purchases, sales, interest credits or debits, charges or
credits, dividend payments, transfer activity, securities receipts
or deliveries, and/or journal entries relating to securities or
funds in the possession or control of the Trading Permit Holder. The
term ``broker-dealer of record'' refers to the broker or dealer
identified on a customer's account application for accounts held
directly at a mutual fund or variable insurance product issuer. See
proposed Rule 9.24(n)(1), (4), and (12); see also 16 CFR 310.2(o)
and FINRA Rule 3230(m)(1), (4), and (12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The person is a broker or dealer.

This amendment deletes the exception related to existing customers and
replaces it with the exception for proposed defined term ``established
business relationships,'' the definition of which is substantially
similar to the FTC's definition of that term.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See id.; see also FINRA Rule 3230(a).

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

Trading Permit Holder's Firm-Specific Do-Not-Call List

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 9.24(d) to provide that each
Trading Permit Holder must make and maintain a centralized list of
persons who have informed the Trading Permit Holder or any of its
associated persons that they do not wish to receive outbound telephone
calls.\26\ The proposed rule change replaces the term ``solicitations''
with the proposed term ``outbound telephone calls,'' the definition of
which is substantially similar to the FTC's definition of that
term.\27\ The proposed rule change also deletes the prohibition on
making outbound telephone calls to persons on the Trading Permit
Holder's firm-specific do-not-call list and moves this prohibition to
proposed Rule 9.24(a)(2), as described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The proposed rule change also renumbers this provision as
paragraph (d)(1).
    \27\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(A) and supra note 17; see also
FINRA Rule 3230(a)(2). Additionally, this proposed rule change
replaces a reference to the term ``member'' with ``Trading Permit
Holder,'' which conforms to the term currently used in CBOE's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 9.24(d)(2) adopts procedures that Trading Permit
Holders must institute to comply with Rule 9.24(a) and (b) prior to
engaging in telemarketing. These procedures must meet the following
minimum standards:
    (1) Trading Permit Holders must have a written policy for
maintaining their firm-specific do-not-call lists.
    (2) Personnel engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be
informed and trained in the existence and use of the Trading Permit
Holder's firm-specific do-not-call list.
    (3) If a Trading Permit Holder receives a request from a person not
to receive calls from that Trading Permit Holder, the Trading Permit
Holder must record the request and place the person's name, if
provided, and telephone number on its firm-specific do-not-call list at
the time the request is made.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Trading Permit Holders must honor a person's do-not-call
request within a reasonable time from the date the request is made,
which may not exceed 30 days from the date of the request. If these
requests are recorded or maintained by a party other than the
Trading Permit Holder on whose behalf the outbound telephone call is
made, the Trading Permit Holder on whose behalf the outbound
telephone call is made will still be liable for any failures to
honor the do-not-call request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Trading Permit Holders or associated persons making an outbound
telephone call must make the caller disclosures set forth in Rule
9.24(b).
    (5) In the absence of a specific request by the person to the
contrary, a person's do-not-call request shall apply to the Trading
Permit Holder making the call, and shall not apply to affiliated
entities unless the consumer reasonably would expect them to be
included given the identification of the call and the product being
advertised.
    (6) A Trading Permit Holder making outbound telephone calls must
maintain a record of a person's request not to receive further calls.

Inclusion of this requirement to adopt these procedures will not create
any new obligations on Trading Permit Holders, as they are already
subject to identical provisions under FCC telemarketing
regulations.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See 47 CFR 64.1200(d); see also FINRA Rule 3230(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do-Not-Call Safe Harbors

    Proposed Rule 9.24(e) provides for certain exceptions to the
telemarketing restriction set forth in proposed Rule 9.24(a)(3), which
prohibits outbound telephone calls to persons on the FTC's national do-
not-call registry.
    First, proposed Rule 9.24(e)(1) provides that a Trading Permit
Holder or associated person making outbound telephone calls will not be
liable for violating proposed Rule 9.24(a)(3) if:
    (1) The Trading Permit Holder has an established business
relationship with the called person; however, a person's request to be
placed on the Trading Permit Holder's firm-specific do-not-call list
terminates the established business relationship exception to the
national do-not-call registry provision for that Trading Permit Holder
even if the person continues to do business with the Trading Permit
Holder;
    (2) The Trading Permit Holder has obtained the person's prior
express written consent, which must be clearly evidenced by a signed,
written agreement (which may be obtained electronically under the E-
Sign Act \30\) between the person and the Trading Permit Holder that
states that the person agrees to be contacted by the Trading Permit
Holder and includes the telephone number to which the calls may be
placed; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) The Trading Permit Holder or associated person making the call
has a personal relationship \31\ with the called person.

    \31\ The term ``personal relationship'' means any family member,
friend, or acquaintance of the person making an outbound telephone
call. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(18); see also FINRA Rule
3230(m)(18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's
provision regarding an exception to the prohibition on making outbound
telephone calls to persons on the FTC's do-not-call registry.\32\ The
FTC provided a discussion of the provision when it was adopted pursuant
to the Prevention Act.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B); see also FINRA Rule
3230(b).
    \33\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68
FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4628; and Federal Trade Commission,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995) at 43854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, proposed Rule 9.24(e)(2) provides that a Trading Permit
Holder or associated person making outbound telephone calls will not be
liable for violating proposed Rule 9.24(a)(3) if the Trading Permit
Holder or associated person demonstrates that the violation is the
result of an error and that as part of the Trading Permit Holder's
routine business practice:
    (1) The Trading Permit Holder has established and implemented
written procedures to comply with Rule 9.24(a) and (b);
    (2) The Trading Permit Holder has trained its personnel, and any
entity assisting in its compliance, in the procedures established
pursuant to the preceding clause;
    (3) The Trading Permit Holder has maintained and recorded a list of
telephone numbers that it may not contact in compliance with Rule
9.24(d); and
    (4) The Trading Permit Holder uses a process to prevent outbound
telephone calls to any telephone number on the Trading Permit Holder's
firm-specific do-not-call list or the national do-not-call registry,
employing a version of the national do-not-call registry obtained from
the FTC no more than 31 days prior to the date any call is made, and
maintains records documenting this process.

The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's safe
harbor to the prohibition on making outbound telephone calls to persons
on the FTC's national do-not-call registry.\34\ The FTC provided a
discussion of the provision when it was adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(3); see also FINRA Rule 3230(c).
    \35\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68
FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4628; and Federal Trade Commission,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60 FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995) at 43855.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wireless Communications

    Proposed Rule 9.24(f) clarifies that the provisions set forth in
Rule 9.24 are applicable to Trading Permit Holders and associated
persons making outbound telephone calls to wireless telephone
numbers.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See also FINRA Rule 3230(e).

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

Outsourcing Telemarketing

    Proposed Rule 9.24(g) states that if a Trading Permit Holder uses
another entity to perform telemarketing services on its behalf, the
Trading Permit Holder remains responsible for ensuring compliance with
Rule 9.24. The proposed rule change also provides that an entity or
person to which a Trading Permit Holder outsources its telemarketing
services must be appropriately registered or licensed, where
required.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See also FINRA Rule 3230(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Billing Information

    The proposed rule change reletters Rule 9.24(e) as Rule 9.24(h) and
provides that, for any telemarketing transaction, no Trading Permit
Holder or associated person may submit billing information \38\ for
payment without the express informed consent of the customer. Proposed
Rule 9.24(h) requires that each Trading Permit Holder or associated
person must obtain the express informed consent of the person to be
charged and to be charged using the identified account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The term ``billing information'' means any data that
enables any person to access a customer's or donor's account, such
as a credit or debit card number, a brokerage, checking, or savings
account number, or a mortgage loan account number. See proposed Rule
9.24(n)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the telemarketing transaction involves preacquired account
information \39\ and a free-to-pay conversion \40\ feature, the Trading
Permit Holder or associated person must:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The term ``preacquired account information'' means any
information that enables a Trading Permit Holder or associated
person to cause a charge to be placed against a customer's or
donor's account without obtaining the account number directly from
the customer or donor during the telemarketing transaction pursuant
to which the account will be charged. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(19).
    \40\ The term ``free-to-pay conversion'' means, in an offer or
agreement to sell or provide any goods or services, a provision
under which a customer receives a product or service for free for an
initial period and will incur an obligation to pay for the product
or service if he or she does not take affirmative action to cancel
before the end of that period. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(13).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Obtain from the customer, at a minimum, the last four digits of
the account number to be charged;
    (2) Obtain from the customer an express agreement to be charged and
to be charged using the identified account number; and
    (3) Make and maintain an audio recording of the entire
telemarketing transaction.
    For any other telemarketing transaction involving preacquired
account information, the Trading Permit Holder or associated person
must:
    (1) Identify the account to be charged with sufficient specificity
for the customer to understand what account will be charged; and
    (2) Obtain from the customer an express agreement to be charged and
to be charged using the identified account number.

    The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's
provision regarding the submission of billing information.\41\ The FTC
provided a discussion of the provision when it was adopted pursuant to
the Prevention Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(7); see also FINRA Rule 3230(i).
    \42\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68
FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caller Identification Information

    Proposed Rule 9.24(i) provides that Trading Permit Holders that
engage in telemarketing must transmit caller identification information
\43\ and are explicitly prohibited from blocking caller identification
information. The telephone number provided must permit any person to
make a do-not-call request during normal business hours. These
provisions are similar to the caller identification provision in the
FTC rules.\44\ Inclusion of these caller identification provisions in
this proposed rule change will not create any new obligations on
Trading Permit Holders, as they are already subject to identical
provisions under FCC telemarketing regulations.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Caller identification information includes the telephone
number and, when made available by the Trading Permit Holder's
telephone carrier, the name of the Trading Permit Holder.
    \44\ See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(8); see also FINRA Rule 3230(g).
    \45\ See 47 CFR 64.1601(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unencrypted Consumer Account Numbers

    Proposed Rule 9.24(j) prohibits a Trading Permit Holder or
associated person from disclosing or receiving, for consideration,
unencrypted consumer account numbers for use in telemarketing. The
proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's provision
regarding unencrypted consumer account numbers.\46\ The FTC provided a
discussion of the provision when it was adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act.\47\ Additionally, the proposed rule change defines
``unencrypted'' as not only complete, visible account numbers, whether
provided in lists or singly, but also encrypted information with a key
to its decryption. The proposed definition is substantially similar to
the view taken by the FTC.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See 16 CFR 310.4(a)(6); see also FINRA Rule 3230(h).
    \47\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68
FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4615.
    \48\ See id. at 4616.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abandoned Calls

    Proposed Rule 9.24(k) prohibits a Trading Permit Holder or
associated person from abandoning \49\ any outbound telephone call. The
abandoned calls prohibition is subject to a ``safe harbor'' under
proposed Rule 9.24(k)(2) that requires a Trading Permit Holder or
associated person:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ An outbound telephone call is ``abandoned'' if the called
person answers it and the call is not connected to a Trading Permit
Holder or associated person within two seconds of the called
person's completed greeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) To employ technology that ensures abandonment of no more than
three percent of all calls answered by a person, measured over the
duration of a single calling campaign, if less than 30 days, or
separately over each successive 30-day period or portion thereof that
the campaign continues;
    (2) For each outbound telephone call placed, to allow the telephone
to ring for at least 15 seconds or four rings before disconnecting an
unanswered call;
    (3) Whenever a Trading Permit Holder or associated person is not
available to speak with the person answering the outbound telephone
call within two seconds after the person's completed greeting, promptly
to play a prerecorded message stating the name and telephone number of
the Trading Permit Holder or associated person on whose behalf the call
was placed; and
    (4) To maintain records documenting compliance with the ``safe
harbor.''

The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's
provisions regarding abandoned calls.\50\ The FTC provided a discussion
of the provisions when they were adopted pursuant to the Prevention
Act.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(iv) and (b)(4); see also FINRA Rule
3230(j).
    \51\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68
FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4641.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prerecorded Messages

    Proposed Rule 9.24(l) prohibits a Trading Permit Holder or
associated person from initiating any outbound telephone call that
delivers a prerecorded message without a person's express written
agreement \52\ to receive

such calls. The proposed rule change also requires that all prerecorded
outbound telephone calls provide specified opt-out mechanisms so that a
person can opt out of future calls. The prohibition does not apply to a
prerecorded message permitted for compliance with the ``safe harbor''
for abandoned calls under proposed Rule 9.24(k)(2). The proposed rule
change is substantially similar to the FTC's provisions regarding
prerecorded messages.\53\ The FTC provided a discussion of the
provisions when they were adopted pursuant to the Prevention Act.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ The express written agreement must: (a) Have been obtained
only after a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the purpose of
the agreement is to authorize the Trading Permit Holder to place
prerecorded calls to such person; (b) have been obtained without
requiring, directly or indirectly, that the agreement be executed as
a condition of purchasing any good or service; (c) evidence the
willingness of the called person to receive calls that deliver
prerecorded messages by or on behalf of the Trading Permit Holder;
and (d) include the person's telephone number and signature (which
may be obtained electronically under the E-Sign Act).
    \53\ See 16 CFR 310.4(b)(1)(v); see also FINRA Rule 3230(k).
    \54\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 73
FR 51164 (Aug. 29, 2008) at 51165.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credit Card Laundering

    Proposed Rule 9.24(m) prohibits credit card laundering, the
practice of depositing into the credit card system \55\ a sales draft
that is not the result of a credit card transaction between the
cardholder \56\ and the Trading Permit Holder. Except as expressly
permitted, the proposed rule change prohibits a Trading Permit Holder
or associated person from:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The term ``credit card system'' means any method or
procedure used to process credit card transactions involving credit
cards issued or licensed by the operator of that system. The term
``credit card'' means any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit
device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor,
or services on credit. The term ``credit'' means the right granted
by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt
and defer its payment. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(7), (8), and (10).
    \56\ The term ``cardholder'' means a person to whom a credit
card is issued or who is authorized to use a credit card on behalf
of or in addition to the person to whom the credit card is issued.
See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Presenting to or depositing into the credit card system for
payment, a credit card sales draft \57\ generated by a telemarketing
transaction that is not the result of a telemarketing credit card
transaction between the cardholder and the Trading Permit Holder;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The term ``credit card sales draft'' means any record or
evidence of a credit card transaction. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Employing, soliciting, or otherwise causing a merchant,\58\ or
an employee, representative or agent of the merchant to present to or
to deposit into the credit card system for payment, a credit card sales
draft generated by a telemarketing transaction that is not the result
of a telemarketing credit card transaction between the cardholder and
the Trading Permit Holder; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ The term ``merchant'' means a person who is authorized
under a written contract with an acquirer to honor or accept credit
cards, or to transmit or process for payment credit card payments,
for the purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution.
The term ``acquirer'' means a business organization, financial
institution, or an agent of a business organization or financial
institution that has authority from an organization that operates or
licenses a credit card system to authorize merchants to accept,
transmit, or process payment by credit card through the credit card
system for money, goods or services, or anything else of value. See
proposed Rule 9.24(n)(2) and (14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Obtaining access to the credit card system through the use of a
business relationship or an affiliation with a merchant, when such
access is not authorized by the merchant agreement \59\ or the
applicable credit card system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ The term ``merchant agreement'' means a written contract
between a merchant and an acquirer to honor or accept credit cards,
or to transmit or process for payment credit card payments, for the
purchase of goods or services or a charitable contribution. See
proposed Rule 9.24(n)(15).

The proposed rule change is substantially similar to the FTC's
provision regarding credit card laundering.\60\ The FTC provided a
discussion of the provisions when they were adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See 16 CFR 310.3(c); see also FINRA Rule 3230(l).
    \61\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60
FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995) at 43852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions

    Proposed Rule 9.24(n) adopts the following definitions, which are
substantially similar to the FTC's definitions of these terms:
``Acquirer,'' ``billing information,'' ``caller identification
service,'' ``cardholder,'' ``charitable contribution,'' ``credit,''
``credit card,'' ``credit card sales draft,'' ``credit card system,''
``customer,'' ``donor,'' ``established business relationship,'' ``free-
to-pay conversion,'' ``merchant,'' ``merchant agreement,'' ``outbound
telephone call,'' ``person,'' ``preacquired account information,''
``telemarketer,'' and ``telemarketing.'' \62\ The FTC provided a
discussion of each definition when they were adopted pursuant to the
Prevention Act.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9),
(10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (19), (20), and
(21); and 16 CFR 310.2(a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (k),
(l), (n), (o), (p), (s), (t), (v), (w), (x), (cc), and (dd); see
also FINRA Rule 3230(m)(2), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
(11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (19), and (20). The
proposed rule change also adopts definitions of ``account
activity,'' ``broker-dealer of record,'' and ``personal
relationship'' that are substantially similar to FINRA's definitions
of these terms. See proposed Rule 9.24(n)(1), (4), and (18) and
FINRA Rule 3230(m)(1), (4), and (18); see also 47 CFR 64.1200(f)(14)
(FCC's definition of ``personal relationship'').
    \63\ See Federal Trade Commission, Telemarketing Sales Rule, 60
FR 43842 (Aug. 23, 1995) at 43843; and Federal Trade Commission,
Telemarketing Sales Rule, 68 FR 4580 (Jan. 29, 2003) at 4587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

State and Federal Laws

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 9.24, Interpretation and
Policy .01 \64\ to remind Trading Permit Holders and associated persons
that engage in telemarketing that they also are subject to the
requirements of relevant state and federal laws and rules, including
the Prevention Act, the TCPA,\65\ and the rules of the FCC relating to
telemarketing practices and the rights of telephone consumers.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See also FINRA Rule 3230, Supplementary Material .01,
Compliance with Other Requirements.
    \65\ See 47 U.S.C. 227.
    \66\ See 47 CFR 64.1200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Applicability to CBSX

    The proposed rule change also amends Appendix A, Applicability of
Rules of the Exchange, to the CBSX Rules to add Rule 9.24 to the list
of CBOE Rules that apply to CBSX. The Introduction to the CBSX Rules
provides that the trading of non-option securities on CBSX are subject
to the Rules in Chapters 1 through 29 (including Rule 9.24) of the
Exchange Rules to the same extent such Rules apply to the trading of
the products to which those Rules apply, in some cases supplemented or
replaced by the Rules in Chapters 50 through 54, except for Rules that
have been replaced by rules in Chapters 50 through 54 and except where
the context otherwise requires. Through this provision, the
telemarketing restrictions in Rule 9.24 have always applied to CBSX
Trading Permit Holders. The proposed rule change merely makes the
applicability of Rule 9.24 to CBSX Trading Permit Holders explicit in
Appendix A.

Announcement in Regulatory Circular

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90
days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no
later than 180 days following the effective date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\67\ Specifically,

the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \68\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \68\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change will prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and protect investors and the public interest by
continuing to prohibit Trading Permit Holders from engaging in
deceptive and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices.
Additionally, the proposed rule change removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, because it provides consistency among telemarketing rules of
national securities exchanges and FINRA, therefore making it easier for
investors to comply with these rules. The proposed rule change to
include Rule 9.24 in the list of Exchange Rules that apply to CBSX also
protects investors by eliminating any potential confusion among
investors as to whether Rule 9.24 applies to CBSX Trading Permit
Holders.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. Impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. Become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \69\ of the Act and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \70\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \70\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2012-024 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-024. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-024 and should be
submitted on or before April 11, 2012.

    \71\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\71\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6765 Filed 3-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10430-10434]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4172]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0140; FRL-9634-5]

Revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Portion of the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Rule
1315

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (District) portion of the California
SIP. This SIP revision proposes to incorporate Rule 1315--Federal New
Source Review Tracking System--into the District's SIP approved New
Source Review (NSR) program to establish the procedures for
demonstrating equivalency with Federal offset requirements by
specifying how the District will track debits and credits in its Offset
Accounts for Federal NSR Equivalency for specific Federal nonattainment
pollutants and their precursors. The District's SIP approved NSR
program contained in Regulation XIII allows the District to exempt
certain sources from obtaining offsetting emission reductions on the
open market and for the District to provide offsets for designated
sources that qualify, such as essential public services. EPA's proposal
to approve this SIP revision is based on finding that Rule 1315
provides an adequate system to demonstrate on an on-going basis that an
equivalent amount of offsets are being provided pursuant to this rule
as would otherwise be required by the Clean Air Act (CAA) and that the
emission reductions the District is crediting and debiting in its
Offset Accounts meet the requirements of the CAA and can be used to
provide the offsets otherwise required for Federal major sources and
modifications.

DATES: Comments on this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) must be
submitted no later than March 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0140, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Gerardo Rios (Air-3), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While EPA generally
lists the documents in the docket in the index, some information may
not be specifically listed as a line item in the index or may be
publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., voluminous
records, copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available
in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials,
please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The hard
copy materials constitute the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Evaluation of SIP Revision
    A. What is in the SIP revision?
    B. What are the Federal Clean Air Act requirements?
    C. How does the SIP revision comply with the Federal integrity
criteria and demonstrate equivalency?
    D. Do Rule 1315's offsets comply with the EPA's base year
requirements?
    E. CAA Section 110(l)
    F. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA allows and encourages local authorities to tailor SIP programs,
including new source review permitting programs, to account for that
community's particular needs provided that the SIP is not less
stringent than the Act's requirements. See generally CAA Section 116,
42 U.S.C. 7416; Train v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 421 U.S. 60, 79
(1975); Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 250 (1976). The
District's nonattainment permitting rules contained in District
Regulation XIII went through numerous public workshops and stakeholder
meetings prior to adoption in December 1995. The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted Regulation XIII along with supporting
regulations and documents to EPA Region 9 on August 28, 1996. On
December 4, 1996, EPA Region 9 published a direct final approval of
Regulation XIII in the Federal Register. 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996)
(Codified at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(240)(i)(1)).
    When EPA approved Regulation XIII, we noted that Rule 1304 exempted
certain major sources from obtaining offsets and Rule 1309.1 allowed
the

District to provide offsets for specific ``priority'' projects. We
approved these rules because the District committed to demonstrating on
an annual basis that it was providing an amount of offsets that was
equivalent to the amount required to offset Federal new and modified
major sources.\1\ EPA did not require the District to codify its
internal NSR tracking system in rule language as a condition of full
approval of Regulation XIII. From 1997 through 2005, the District
submitted annual equivalency reports to its Board for approval and
provided copies to EPA Region 9.\2\ The District's Board meetings at
which the annual reports were approved were open to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Air & Toxics
Division Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of Final
Rulemaking for the California State Implementation Plan South Coast
Air Quality Management District New Source Review by Gerardo C.
Rios, October 24, 1996 (TSD).
    \2\ Annual Equivalency Reports approved by the South Coast AQMD
Board, dated February 14, 1997, March 13, 1998, April 9, 1999,
August 18, 2000, November 9, 2001, August 2, 2002, and April 2,
2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA informed the District beginning in 2002 that if it was
significantly expanding the sources that were allowed to obtain offsets
from the internal NSR tracking system through a new offset budget rule
(Rule 1309.2--Offset Budget), the tracking system's transparency should
be improved. Proposed SCAQMD NSR Offset Tracking System, Oct. 14, 2005,
(2005 Proposed Tracking System) at p.1. In 2004-2005, the District
drafted regulatory language, now revised and adopted as Rule 1315, to
establish NSR program equivalency with the Federal NSR offset
requirements for major sources and demonstrate annually that the
District provided sufficient offsets for Federal major sources and
modifications that were (1) otherwise exempt from offset requirements
under Rule 1304 or (2) allocated offsets pursuant to Rule 1309.1.
Proposed Rule 1315(a), Preliminary Draft, Adopted Sept. 8, 2006.
    In our discussions during 2002-2003, EPA also noted that the
District's use of the negative NSR balances and other pre-1990 era
offsets to fund the NSR tracking system would be inconsistent with
Federal requirements unless the District had sufficient records for
those offsets. Staff Report: Proposed Rule 1315--Federal New Source
Review Tracking System, dated January 7, 2011, at pp. 6-7 (2011 Staff
Report); 2005 Proposed Tracking System at pp. 1-2. The District
concluded that it did not readily have sufficient documentation for
many of the offsets it had collected from the negative NSR balances and
other pre-1990 era offsets. Proposed SCAMQD NSR Offset Tracking System,
Oct. 14, 2005 at p. 2.
    The District responded to EPA's request by eliminating any offsets
originating before 1990 without documentation on October 14, 2005. 2005
Proposed Tracking System, at pp. 12-13. Unlike many areas, the District
requires almost all Federal minor sources to obtain a permit and offset
any emission increases up to the sources' permitted emissions level.
Rule 1303(b)(2).
    The adjustments the District made in October 2005 to the existing
NSR tracking system significantly decreased the balance of available
offsets for most pollutants. For example, this adjustment reduced the
internal NSR tracking system balance for PM10 (particulate
matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10
micrometers) by 92% (from 34.5 to 2.67 tons per day). 2011 Staff
Report, at p. 9; 2005 Proposed Tracking System, at Table 1. The
District informed EPA Region 9 that it had previously credited the
offsets from minor orphan shutdowns for State purposes. The District
had not needed to credit those minor orphan shutdowns for its Federal
accounts because the offsets from the negative NSR balances were far
greater than the amount needed to demonstrate equivalency with Federal
offset requirements for Rule 1304 exempt sources and Rule 1309.1
priority reserve sources. (2005 Proposed Tracking System), at p. 3.
    EPA and the District had further discussions about the changes to
the NSR tracking system resulting in a revised letter to EPA dated
February 23, 2006. SCAQMD's Revised NSR Offset Tracking System, Feb.
23, 2006. The revisions primarily resolved issues EPA raised regarding
the District's method of reporting the offset account balances and the
remedy if a shortfall was projected. SCAQMD Letter from Dr. Barry
Wallerstein to Deborah Jordan, Feb. 24, 2006. EPA responded by letter
on April 11, 2006, indicating that the District's proposed NSR Offset
Tracking System funded with emission reductions from minor and major
orphan shutdowns and other sources (i.e. credits to the system)
appeared to be sufficient for EPA to propose approval of Rule 1315. EPA
Letter from Deborah Jordan to Dr. Barry Wallerstein, April 11, 2006.
Both the October 2005 Proposed SCAQMD NSR Offset Tracking System and
February 23, 2006 Revised NSR Offset Tracking System appended tables
prepared by the SCAQMD called the ``Federal Running Balances.'' Revised
NSR Offset Tracking System, Feb. 23, 2006, Attachment 1. The Federal
Running Balances table contains details concerning the credits added
and debits subtracted from the NSR offset tracking system.
    The District adopted Rule 1315's regulatory language codifying how
it will account for, or ``track'', the emission reductions that it adds
into its Offset Accounts as credits and those which it subtracts as
debits to provide offsets for the construction of certain Federal major
sources or modifications exempted from offset requirements pursuant to
Rule 1304 or for which the District provided offsets pursuant to Rule
1309.1. SCAQMD Governing Board Resolution for the Re-adoption of Rule
1315--Federal New Source Review Tracking System, dated Feb. 4, 2011.
EPA is now proposing to approve Rule 1315 as a SIP revision.

II. Evaluation of SIP Revision

A. What is in the SIP revision?

    Rule 1315 which the District, through CARB, submitted to EPA
consists of the regulatory text the District adopted on February 4,
2011, along with supporting documentation including a Staff Report
dated January 7, 2011. EPA received the SIP submittal for Rule 1315
from CARB on March 2, 2011, and a supplemental submittal on February 7,
2012. On March 25, 2011, we found that the submittal of District Rule
1315 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which
must be met before formal EPA review.
    The Rule contains a section describing its purpose and a
definitions section. Rule 1315(a) and (b). Rule 1315(c), Offset
Accounts for Federal NSR Equivalency, contains provisions for
quantifying, crediting and debiting the offset accounts. Rule
1315(c)(1), District Offset Accounts for Federal Nonattainment Air
Contaminants, provides that all pre-1990 offsets were removed at the
end of 2005 and sets forth the initial District Offset Account Balances
in Table A. Rule 1315(c)(2) provides that the District shall debit its
Offsets Accounts for emissions increases at Federal new and modified
major sources that are not required to provide Emission Reduction
Credits (ERCs) based on Rules 1304 (Exemptions) and 1309.1 (Priority
Reserve). Rule 1315(c)(3)(A) contains a list of the emission reductions
the District can add to its Offset Accounts and 1315(c)(3)(B)
establishes how the District will quantify the actual emissions
reductions for that list. Rule 1315(c)(4) specifies how the District
will discount each Offset Account annually to ensure the reductions
will be surplus to all CAA requirements at the time an offset is

used. Rule 1315(c)(5) specifies the steps the District will take to
calculate annually a Preliminary Determination of Equivalence and Final
Determination of Equivalence. In Rule 1315(c)(6), the District sets
forth how the credits and debits meet each of the Federal requirements
for offsets. The remaining provisions in Rule 1315 establish the
methods for reporting the annual Preliminary and Final Equivalency
demonstrations, projecting future Offset Account balances and methods
to remedy any balance shortfalls. Rule 1315 provides that it will
expire on January 1, 2031.

B. What are the Federal Clean Air Act requirements?

    The South Coast Air Basin is an extreme nonattainment area for
ozone and a serious nonattainment area for PM10. The
Coachella Valley Air Basin is a severe nonattainment area for ozone and
a serious nonattainment area for PM10. Oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) are both ozone
precursors and are therefore treated as ozone nonattainment pollutants.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are PM10
precursors and are therefore also treated as a PM10
nonattainment pollutant. While the District is classified as
nonattainment for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers) and
portions of the District as nonattainment for lead, Rule 1315 does not
apply to these pollutants. The District was redesignated to attainment
for carbon monoxide (CO) on May 11, 2007 (72 FR 26718), but CO is
included in the tracking system because of its past nonattainment
status.
    As required by CAA Sec.  110(a)(2)(C), SIPs are required to include
provisions to comply with CAA Part D for nonattainment pollutants.
Among the Part D requirements, Sec.  173(a)(1)(A) requires new and
modified major stationary sources to provide offsetting emission
reductions. Section 173(c) requires the offsetting emission reductions
to be quantifiable, surplus, permanent, and enforceable. See 40 CFR
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(c)(i); 40 CFR part 51, appendix S. This proposal will
refer to those requirements as the ``federal integrity criteria''.
    EPA is proposing to approve Rule 1315 because the rule ensures that
the emission reductions in the District's Offset Accounts meet the
Federal integrity criteria. See Rule 1315(c). Rule 1315 also
demonstrates that the District's offset tracking system provides an
equivalent quantity of offsets for those major sources and
modifications that are not required to provide such offsets pursuant to
District Rules 1304 and 1309.1. EPA's analysis of how the credits and
debits tracked in Rule 1315 meet the Federal integrity criteria is
summarized below and set forth in more detail in the Technical Support
Document (TSD).

C. How does the SIP revision comply with the Federal integrity criteria
and demonstrate equivalency?

1. The Offsets Credited and Debited Through Rule 1315 Are Quantifiable
    EPA is proposing to approve Rule 1315 because the emission
reductions that the District credits and debits to its Offset Accounts
meet the requirement to be quantifiable emissions reductions. The
District meets this requirement by demonstrating that the credits and
debits are actual and quantifiable reductions of emissions. To quantify
the reductions of emissions from orphan shutdown sources, the District
determines the permitted emissions level and then applies an 80% actual
emissions factor. Rule 1315(c)(3)(B)(i); Staff Report at p. 17 (``AQMD
proposes to use an average discount factor to account for the
difference between potential and actual emissions.''). The vast
majority of emission reductions credited to the Offset Accounts are
from orphan shutdowns, which occur when the owner/operator of a
stationary source that has been shut down does not apply for an
Emission Reduction Credit (ERC) under Rule 1309 (Emission Reduction
Credits and Short Term Credits). Staff Report at p. 17. The information
that is available to the District when a source is shut down and the
operating permit is inactivated are the source's permitted emissions,
which represent its potential to emit rather than its actual emissions.
Under Rule 1315, the District makes an adjustment to the permitted
(i.e. potential) emissions by applying an 80% actual emissions factor
before crediting these emissions to the Offset Accounts. See Rule
1315(c)(3)(B)(i); Staff Report at p. 17.
    The District has justified its determination that reducing the
permitted (i.e. potential) emissions by 20% and crediting the remaining
80% is an adequate representation of actual emissions based on several
considerations. The District has historically implemented an 80% actual
emissions factor for estimating actual emission reductions in its
Regulation XIII annual reports following concurrence by the California
Air Resources Board. Staff Report at 17. The District also provided a
Federal Reserve Statistical Release Report examining historical
industrial production and capacity utilization. While certain short
term cycles may reflect greater or lower utilization, the District's
justification for selecting an 80% factor over the long term is
supported by this data. Id. The District's method of quantifying actual
emission reductions is also supported by the inherent structure of the
District's NSR program. Every stationary source that is operated in the
District with permitted emissions exceeding 4 tons per year (tpy) of
ozone precursors or PM10 (including precursors) is required
to obtain ERCs to offset the entire amount of its permitted emissions.
The cost of obtaining the ERCs to offset permitted emissions provides
``a strong incentive to keep [each source's] potential emissions in
line with actual emissions during times of high production''. Staff
Report at 17.
    For exempt and priority reserve sources that obtain their offsets
from the District, the District limits the amount of offsets provided
by including permit conditions that limit operations to actual
operating scenarios. The District has shown that fifty to eighty
percent of the very small exempt sources (emitting < 4 tpy of most
pollutants) have permits emissions limits that are less than one-half
of the exemption threshold (i.e. permitted emissions are less than 2
tpy). Table 5 of Staff Report, p 18. This information supports finding
that the District is permitting sources at close to the source's actual
emissions and that an 80% actual emissions factor adequately reflects
actual reductions from orphan shutdown sources.
    For the reasons provided by the District, EPA is proposing to
approve Rule 1315 as ensuring that the emission reductions it credits
to its Offset Accounts pursuant to Rule 1315(c)(3)(B)(i) meet the
requirement to be actual emission reductions based on crediting only
80% of permitted emission levels.
2. The Offsets Credited and Debited Through Rule 1315 Are Surplus
    Rule 1315(c)(4) ensures that any offsets debited from the District
Offset Accounts are properly adjusted to be surplus at the time they
are used as required by the Federal integrity criteria. Specifically,
the rule requires that the balance of credits in the Offset Accounts
for each pollutant be reduced annually to account for any newly adopted
rules that control these pollutants, ensuring that the debits used as
offsets are surplus at the time they are used. Rule 1315(c)(4)
(providing that the District discount the Offset Account balances
annually ``based on the percentage reduction in overall

permitted emissions projected to be achieved as a result of
implementation of control requirements that became effective during the
previous calendar year for each specific nonattainment contaminant
within the District.'') EPA is proposing to find that Rule 1315 ensures
that the offsets the District debits from its Offset Accounts meet the
Federal integrity criterion to be surplus.
3. The Offsets Debited From the District Offset Accounts Are Permanent
    The emission reductions credited to the District's Offset Accounts
are all permanent reductions at the time they are credited to the
accounts because the permit for the emission source has either been
retired or revised to include conditions that limit the emissions to
levels lower than they are otherwise required to be limited through the
use of federally enforceable permit conditions. The debits are
permanent because Rule 1315 requires the District to subtract those
offsets from the District's Offset Account balances. Rule
1315(c)(5)(B). The District must provide its Preliminary and Final
Determinations of Equivalency annually to ensure there is a positive
balance in each Offset Account. Rule 1315 also contains an equivalency
backstop provision if any Offset Account has a shortfall. Rule 1315(f).
EPA is proposing to find that Rule 1315 assures that the emission
reductions in the District's Offset Accounts meet the requirement for
permanent reductions.
4. The Offsets Credited and Debited From the District Offset Accounts
Are Enforceable
    The emission reductions credited to the District's Offset Accounts
for orphan shutdowns or orphan reductions are all enforceable
reductions at the time they are credited to the accounts because the
permit for the emission source has either been retired, which means the
source is no longer allowed to operate/emit those pollutants, or
revised to include conditions that limit the emissions to levels lower
than they are otherwise required to be limited through the use of
federally enforceable permit conditions. This ensures that the
emissions will be permanently retired or reduced. Rule 1315(b)(4) & (5)
and (c)(3)(A)(i) & (ii). For each of the other types of credits listed
in Rule 1315 (c)(3)(A), the credits are based on ERCs that have been
generated pursuant to Rule 1309, which also requires that the emission
reductions meet each of the Federal integrity criterion, including the
requirement to be enforceable emission reductions. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to find Rule 1315 meets the Federal integrity criterion for
enforceable reductions.

D. Do Rule 1315's offsets comply with the EPA's base year requirements?

    40 CFR 51.165(a)(3)(i)(C) provides:

    Emissions reductions achieved by shutting down an existing
emission unit or curtailing production or operating hours may be
generally credited for offsets if * * *. (ii) [t]he shutdown or
curtailment occurred after the last day of the base year for the SIP
planning process. For purposes of this paragraph, a reviewing
authority may choose to consider a prior shutdown or curtailment to
have occurred after the last day of the base year if the projected
emissions inventory used to develop the attainment demonstration
explicitly includes the emissions from such previously shutdown or
curtailed emission units.

See also 40 CFR part 50, appendix S, IV.

    Rule 1315 is being submitted by the District to demonstrate
equivalency with the Part D requirements for ozone and PM10
(and their precursor emissions). To evaluate Rule 1315's compliance
with the base year requirement for using offsets from emissions units
being shut down or curtailed, EPA has determined that the most
appropriate attainment demonstrations to review are the District's
approved PM10 and 8-hour ozone Plans. Approval and
Promulgation of [SIPs] for Air Quality Planning Purposes; California--
South Coast and Coachella, 70 FR 69081 (Nov. 14, 2005) (2003 Plan);
Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; California; South Coast;
Attainment Plan for 1997 8-hour Ozone Standards, EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0622
(Signed Dec. 15, 2011) (2007 Plan). The District's PM10 Plan
was adopted in 2003 and relies on a 1997 base year emission inventory.
2003 Plans, Chapter 3 & Appendix III. For ozone, the Plan was adopted
in 2007 and relies on a 2002 base year emission inventory. 2007 Plan,
Chapter 3 & Appendix III.
    In accordance with the base year requirements specified in 40 CFR
51.165, the District estimated that 3.1 tons per day (tpd) of pre-2002
base year VOC emission reductions may be needed to satisfy offset
demand. 2007 Plan Appendix III. For ozone precursors, the District
added 27 and 2 tons per day for VOC and NOX, respectively,
as growth.\3\ This amount includes the 3.1 tpd of pre-2002 base year
VOC emission reductions. While this is not the total amount of pre-2002
base year emission reductions available as debits pursuant to Rule
1315, the District has demonstrated that this amount represents the
highest amount of pre-2002 credits that are expected to be used as
offsets prior to attainment of the ozone standard. 2007 Plan Appendix
III, pgs 28-34. The District used a similar approach for the 2003 Plan
as it pertains to PM10 and SOX emissions. See the
TSD for additional details. This approach is consistent with EPA
guidance that states must include pre-base year credits to the ``extent
that the State expects that such credits will be used for offsets * *
*''. 57 FR 13498
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 2007 Plan Appendix III, pgs 28-34, Tables 2-8 and 2-12.
For Table 2.8, the District provided EPA with the point and area
source data used to generate the summary data. EPA used this data to
determine the amount of emission due to growth at facilities subject
to NSR offset requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, even if the District Offset Accounts rely on pre-base
year emission reductions as offsets, the District's Plans have
adequately added pre-base year emissions explicitly into the
appropriate projected planning inventories. For these reasons, EPA is
proposing to approve Rule 1315.

E. CAA Section 110(l)

    Under section 110(l) of the CAA, EPA may not approve any SIP
revision that would interfere with attainment, reasonable further
progress (RFP) or any other CAA requirement. EPA's incorporation of
Rule 1315 into the SIP will not interfere with attainment or RFP
because the rule provides a regulatory mechanism setting forth the
internal offset accounting system that the District has been relying
on. In addition, the District does not rely on the offsets in the
District's Offset Accounts for attainment or RFP in the District's most
recent attainment demonstrations for ozone or PM10.
    This SIP revision also does not interfere with any other CAA
requirement. Rule 1315 provides regulatory language detailing how the
District will quantify and add credits and subtract debits from its
Offset Accounts. Our proposal to approve Rule l315 is based on finding
the rule ensures the credits and debits meet the Federal integrity
criteria and that the District system overall is equivalent to the
requirements of Section 173.

F. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA has determined Rule 1315 fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. After considering the
information and views submitted to us during the comment period, we
will take final action on this SIP submittal.
    Rule 1315 has been under development at the District and the

interested public has been involved in its development for the last
several years, including state litigation concerning the Rule.
Therefore, EPA does not anticipate extending the public comment period
beyond 30 days absent extraordinary or compelling circumstances.

III. 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, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

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

    Dated: February 9, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-4172 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 116)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34415-34417]
[DOCID:fr17jn10-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1114]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before September 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1114, to
Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                (NGVD)  + Elevation in
                                                                feet (NAVD)
                                                                  Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced       ground  [caret]        Communities affected
                                             elevation            Elevation in meters
                                                                         (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Elmore County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tallapoosa River....................  Approximately 3.0 miles         None         +210  City of Tallassee.
                                       downstream of the
                                       Thurlow Dam.
                                      Approximately 1.7 mile          None         +214
                                       downstream of the
                                       Thurlow Dam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Tallassee
Maps are available for inspection at 3 Freeman Avenue, Tallassee, AL 36078.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Darke County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indian Creek........................  Approximately 300 feet          None         +968  Village of Versailles.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with Swamp
                                       Creek.
                                      Approximately 1,000             None         +968
                                       feet upstream of the
                                       confluence with Swamp
                                       Creek.
Painter Creek.......................  Approximately 50 feet           None       +1,030  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of State                                  Darke County.
                                       Highway 49.
                                      Just downstream of              None       +1,049
                                       Hollansburg-Sampson
                                       Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Darke County
Maps are available for inspection at 520 South Broadway Street, Greenville, OH 45331.

Village of Versailles
Maps are available for inspection at 177 North Center Street, Versailles, OH 45380.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Cass County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Bayou.........................  Just upstream of FM 251         None         +227  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Cass County.
                                      Approximately 1 mile            None         +237
                                       upstream of U.S. Route
                                       59.
Hurricane Creek.....................  Approximately 250 feet          None         +237  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of East                                   Cass County.
                                       Pinecrest Drive.
                                      Just downstream of              None         +269
                                       North Holly Street.
South Tributary to Black Bayou......  At the confluence with          None         +228  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Black Bayou.                                       Cass County.
Approximately 800 feet downstream of  None...................         +239
 Salmon Road
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Cass County
Maps are available for inspection at the Cass County Courthouse, 604 Highway 8 North, Linden, TX 75563.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   Hood County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brazos River........................  Approximately 3.4 miles         +696         +695  City of Granbury,
                                       upstream of the Bend                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       Dam.                                               of Hood County.
                                      At the northern county          +711         +710
                                       boundary.
Lambert Branch......................  Just upstream of U.S.           None         +790  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Route 377.                                         Hood County.
                                      Approximately 1,830             None         +819
                                       feet upstream of
                                       Holmes Drive.
Stream LB-2.........................  Just upstream of U.S.           None         +774  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       Route 377.                                         Hood County.
                                      Approximately 550 feet          None         +833
                                       upstream of Ross Lane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
 Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Granbury
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 116 West Bridge Street, Granbury, TX 76048.

                                       Unincorporated Areas of Hood County
Maps are available for inspection at 100 East Pearl Street, Granbury, TX 76048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: June 4, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-14558 Filed 6-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

									February 21, 2008

Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director

Bureau of Air Quality

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 8468

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Ms. Epps:

On January 9, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP)
from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP).
This revision is requesting the approval of the Juniata County,
Pennsylvania’s 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and Base-Year
Inventory.   The EPA has determined that the submittal is
administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to
prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to
Gregory Becoat, Air Quality Planning Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  He is
the principal contact for this rulemaking.

	Sincerely,

          Judith M. Katz, Director /s/

                          			          Air Protection Division

cc:  Arleen Shulman, PADEP

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


 MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/24/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan at the Power Experts Utility Air Quality and Environmental Compliance Conference

SUMMARY:         REGION 4 PROVIDED INFORMATION ON THE CLEAN POWER PLAN to participants at the Power Experts  Utility Air Quality and Environmental Compliance Conference on November 5, 2014, in Atlanta, GA.   The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.   ATTENDEES:

EPA Ken Mitchell/EPA R4 Suzanne Rubini/EPA R4 Valerie Nowell/EPA R4

External Stakeholders Robbie Lewis/DOE Approximately 200 participants

ATTACHMENT