[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 28, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 95553-95554]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 531, 533 and 536

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0135]

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Credits

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This notice partially grants a petition for rulemaking
submitted by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the
Association of Global Automakers (hereinafter collectively referred to
as ``Petitioners'') on June 20, 2016, to consider amending various
aspects of the light vehicle Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
regulations. The Petitioners requested that NHTSA issue a direct final
rule to implement the requested changes, but NHTSA believes that the
issues and questions raised by the Petitioners are worthy of notice and
comment. NHTSA will address the changes requested in the Petition in
the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory
criteria.

DATES: December 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical issues, you may call Mr.
James Tamm in the Fuel Economy Division of the Office of Rulemaking at
(202) 493-0515. For legal issues, you may call Ms. Rebecca Yoon in the
Office of Chief Counsel at<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may send mail to these
officials at: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 20, 2016, the Petitioners submitted
a Petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that
the agencies issue a direct final rule to amend various aspects of the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and light-duty greenhouse gas
(GHG) regulations. The Petitioners stated that these amendments are
necessary to ``address various inconsistencies between'' NHTSA's CAFE
program and EPA's GHG emissions program, and to ``address additional
inefficiencies'' in the programs.
    Specifically, Petitioners requested that NHTSA (and EPA) \1\ modify
the CAFE regulations as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This decision addresses only those portions of the Petition
that are within NHTSA's jurisdiction and responsibility. It does not
address aspects of the Petition that are exclusively under EPA's
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Include ``off-cycle'' credits in the calculation of
manufacturers' fleet fuel economy levels for model years 2010 through
2016;
    (2) Include air conditioning efficiency credits in the calculation
of manufacturers' fleet fuel economy levels for model years 2010
through 2016;
    (3) Apply the ``fuel savings adjustment factor'' for all uses of
CAFE credits;
    (4) Apply the same estimate of Vehicle Miles Traveled for model
years 2011 through 2016 that that the EPA GHG program uses;
    (5) Change the definition of ``credit transfer'' in 49 CFR part 536
to state that the statutory cap on credit transfers applies at time of
transfer rather than at time of use;
    (6) Amend regulations to clarify that manufacturers may manage and
apply their credits regardless of their origin;
    (7) Amend 49 CFR 531(d) so that minimum domestic passenger car
standards represent 92 percent of the overall passenger car CAFE
standard for the fleet as a whole calculated at the end of each model
year, rather than 92 percent of the overall standard as calculated at
the time that the standards are/were originally issued;
    (8) Adjust the ``multiplier'' for full electric vehicles, plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and compressed natural
gas vehicles; and
    (9) ``Improve'' the off-cycle credit approval process and reaffirm
several provisions.
    Some aspects of the Petition were directed to NHTSA, some to both
NHTSA and EPA, and other requests were directed exclusively to EPA. The
sixth item, seeking clarification that manufacturers may manage and
apply their credits regardless of their origin, requests a change in an
EPA regulation (40 CFR 86.1865(k)(5)) that does not appear applicable
or relevant to the CAFE program. Calculation procedures for CAFE
compliance are located at 40 CFR 600.510-12. Credits for CAFE over-
compliance are determined based on the difference between a
manufacturer's calculated ``achieved'' CAFE value and the
manufacturer's calculated ``required'' CAFE value. NHTSA believes that
this request was not intended to be directed at the CAFE program, but
NHTSA would welcome Petitioners' clarification if this is incorrect.
    Similarly, the eighth item, which addresses the ``multiplier'' for
alternative fuel vehicles, applies exclusively to EPA's GHG program.
NHTSA does not speak for EPA in this decision, and will not address
this item in the upcoming rulemaking.
    The remaining items will be addressed in conjunction with the
Agency's upcoming proposal for setting future CAFE standards. NHTSA
believes that these issues are best considered concurrently with that
rulemaking for both procedural and substantive reasons. Procedurally,
reducing the number of rulemaking actions increases administrative
efficiency and improves the ability to evaluate cumulative program
impacts comprehensively. Substantively, while Petitioners' requests
nominally focus on credit and flexibility issues, NHTSA believes that
the underlying questions of whether and how to expand compliance
flexibilities is closely related to the question of what CAFE standards
are maximum feasible in future model years, which NHTSA will determine
in the upcoming rulemaking as required by statute. The Petitioners
appear to agree with this, as the Petition suggests that if a lack of
compliance flexibilities leads manufacturers to pay civil penalties for
CAFE non-compliance, the CAFE standards may be beyond maximum feasible
levels. While NHTSA does not agree that the fact that any manufacturer
would face civil penalties alone would suggest that CAFE standards
would be

beyond maximum feasible, the Agency does agree that manufacturers'
ability to comply with standards is a vital consideration in any CAFE
rulemaking.
    Thus, NHTSA finds that considering these questions concurrently, as
part of the same action, will best allow the Agency to maintain a well-
structured program that maximizes fuel economy gains in the most cost-
effective way possible. NHTSA further concludes that a direct final
rule would not be an appropriate mechanism for responding to
Petitioners' requests, because: (i) The opportunity for notice and
public comment on the Agency's response is important and valuable,
particularly given (ii) the linkage between compliance flexibilities
and the maximum feasible levels of CAFE standards. Moreover, NHTSA
regulations do not allow for a direct final rule to be issued as such
if the rule may be controversial or is likely to result in adverse
comment. NHTSA is aware that various stakeholders have strong views for
and against the expansion of compliance flexibilities in the CAFE
program, and the Agency would expect those stakeholders to comment to a
direct final rule accordingly, which would require the Agency per its
own regulations to initiate notice and comment. See 49 CFR 553.14.
Thus, NHTSA denies the petition to the extent that it seeks a direct
final rule.
    NHTSA's fuel economy standards are final through 2021 and the
upcoming rulemaking is required in order to set standards for 2022 and
subsequent years. However, in streamlining consideration of the
Petitioners' inquiry with the required NPRM, NHTSA will fully evaluate
the items relevant to the CAFE program and standards, including their
impacts on the program if applied prior to 2022. If in considering the
Petitioner's inquiry, NHTSA finds it appropriate to initiate a separate
rulemaking, NHTSA may do so. NHTSA is updating its analysis for the
NPRM and welcomes input from all stakeholders, including in advance of
developing its notice of proposed rulemaking. NHTSA encourages
stakeholders to submit comments and to meet with the Agency to discuss
their comments, concerns, and suggestions. NHTSA and EPA remain
committed to working together to harmonize the CAFE and GHG program
provisions to the extent possible under the agencies' statutes.
    Considering all of the information before the Agency, including but
not limited to the information referenced in the petition, NHTSA grants
the petition in part and denies it in part. The Agency expects to
initiate a rulemaking proceeding in the coming months that will address
those of the Petitioners' requests that are within the Agency's
jurisdiction and power to address. The granting of the petition does
not mean that the Agency will issue a final rule. The determination of
whether to issue a rule will be made after study of the requested
actions and the various alternatives in the course of the rulemaking
proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32901, 32902, and 32903; delegation of
authority at 49 CFR 1.95.

    Issued on December 21, 2016, in Washington, DC, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, 501.5, and 501.7.
Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2016-31140 Filed 12-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 43963]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-72]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR10-20-001]

Regency Intrastate Gas LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 19, 2010.
    Take notice that on July 14, 2010, Regency Intrastate Gas LP filed
pursuant to the Letter Order approving the Stipulation and Agreement
(Settlement) in Docket Nos. PR10-7-000 and 001, a revised Operating
Statement effective August 1, 2010. The updated Operating Statement
includes a revised Statement of Rate page and minor changes throughout
the document to reference transportation service ``charges'' rather
than ``fees.''
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. e.t. on the specified comment date.
Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all the
parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible online at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. e.t. on Monday, August 2, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-18282 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 27133]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13434-000]

Klamath Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

June 1, 2009.
    On April 23, 2009, Klamath Irrigation District filed an application
for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power
Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the C Drop Hydroelectric
Project (project), to be located at the existing diversion structure of
the former Enterprise Hydroelectric Plant in Klamath County, Oregon.
The diversion structure of the Enterprise Plant, which burned and was
taken out of service approximately 25 years ago, is located
approximately 8 miles below the origin of the A canal on Upper Klamath
Lake, a tributary of the Klamath River. The proposed project would
utilize some of the facilities of the former Enterprise Plant, and
construct new facilities where needed. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing 14-foot-wide
intake structure/bridge on the C canal with upgrades to the rack and
gate; (2) an existing forebay with modifications consisting of new
gates, concrete floors, walls, support, and access platform to direct
water flow to one of three places: (a) Through a 20-foot-wide turbine
isolation roller gate into the powerhouse turbine and back into the C
canal; (b) through a 10-foot-wide bypass roller gate; or (c) over any
or all of the three 9-foot-wide automatic trip gates to the bypass; (3)
an existing powerhouse with modifications including a new 20-foot-long,
30-foot-wide, 20-foot-high pre-manufactured metal building covering the
powerhouse; (4) a vertical Kaplan turbine with a maximum hydraulic
capacity of 550 cubic-foot-per-second; (5) a 900-kilowatt synchronous
generator; (6) a 12.47-kilovolt, 150-foot-long transmission line; and
(7) appurtenant facilities. The proposed C Drop project would have an
average annual generation of 2,900 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Ted Sorenson, P.E., Sorenson Engineering, 5203
South 11th East, Idaho Falls, ID 83404; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Gaylord Hoisington,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project, including a copy of
the application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13434) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13238 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 183)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48498-48504]
[DOCID:fr23se09-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2009-0638; FRL-8960-9]

Determinations of Attainment of the One-Hour and Eight-Hour Ozone
Standards for Various Ozone Nonattainment Areas in New Jersey and
Upstate New York

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to determine that various ozone
nonattainment areas in New York and New Jersey have attained the one-
hour and eight-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone.
For the one-hour standard, the areas are: the Atlantic City and Warren
County areas in New Jersey and the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Buffalo-
Niagara Falls, Essex County, Jefferson County, and Poughkeepsie areas
in New York. For the eight-hour standard, the areas are: Buffalo-
Niagara Falls, Jamestown, Poughkeepsie and Essex County (Whiteface
Mountain). The States requested these determinations, based upon three
years of complete, quality-assured ambient air monitoring data and
these areas have continued to attain these ozone standards based on
examination of the most recent air quality data from 2006-2008. These
data demonstrate that the one-hour and eight-hour ozone standards have
been attained in these areas. If EPA makes these proposed
determinations final for the one-hour standard, the areas subject to
the one-hour standard will have completed their progress toward
achieving the one-hour health standard. In the cases where EPA
determines that areas have attained the eight-hour standard, the
requirements for the state to submit certain reasonable further
progress plans, attainment demonstrations, contingency measures and any
other planning requirements of the Clean Air Act related to attainment
of the ozone standards shall be suspended for as long as the areas
continue to attain the eight-hour ozone standard. These proposed
determinations of attainment are not redesignations of these areas to
attainment. Redesignations must meet additional requirements, including
an approved plan to maintain compliance with the air quality standard
for ten years after redesignation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2009. Public
comments on this action are requested and will be considered before
taking final action.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2008-0638, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R02-OAR-
2009-0638. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Kelly, Air Programs Branch,
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor,
New York, New York 10007-1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What Are Today's Proposed Actions?
II. What Is the Background for These Actions?
A. When Were These Areas Designated?
B. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies With the One-hour
Ozone Standard?
C. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies With the Eight-hour
Ozone Standard?
D. Why Is EPA Determining if These Areas Are Attaining The Ozone
Standards?
E. What Are the Likely Effects of These Determinations of
Attainment?
F. How Are These Determinations of Attainment Different From a
Redesignation to Attainment?
III. Did These Areas Attain Their Respective Ozone Standards?
IV. What is EPA Proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Are Today's Proposed Actions?

    The EPA is proposing to determine that several areas designated as
nonattainment for ozone have attained the standard. EPA proposes that
the Atlantic City area and Warren County in New Jersey and the Albany-
Schenectady-Troy, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Essex County, Jefferson
County, and Poughkeepsie areas in New York be certified as attaining
the one-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
    EPA also proposes that four ozone nonattainment areas in New York,
namely the Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Jamestown, Poughkeepsie and the Essex
County nonattainment areas, be certified as attaining the eight-hour
NAAQS established in 1997 for ozone.
    All of these determinations are based upon three years of complete,
quality-assured ambient air monitoring data for the years 2006-2008. In
order to determine the area's air quality status, EPA reviewed ozone
air quality data from the states, in accordance with 40 CFR 50.9 \1\
and EPA policy guidance, as well as data processing, data rounding and
data completeness requirements as discussed later in this proposal.
These data demonstrate that the ozone NAAQS have been attained in these
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CFR refers to the Code of Federal Regulations, in this case
Title 40, part 50.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.918, if these proposed determinations are
made final for the eight-hour ozone standard, the requirements for the
state to submit attainment demonstrations and associated reasonably
available control measures, reasonable further progress plans,
contingency measures and any other State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
related to attainment of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS, will be suspended
for so long as the area continues to attain the ozone NAAQS. However,
other Clean Air Act requirements unrelated to the planning for
attainment of the standard may still be required in some of these
areas, such as development of emission inventory data and application
of Reasonably Available Control Technology to certain sources of air
pollution.

II. What Is the Background for These Actions?

A. When Were These Areas Designated?

    The one-hour ozone designations in this proposed action were
established by EPA following the enactment of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
Amendments in 1990. Each area of the country that was designated
nonattainment for the one-hour ozone NAAQS was classified by operation
of law as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme depending on
the severity of the area's air quality problem. (See CAA sections
107(d)(1)(C) and 181(a)).
    EPA designated and classified most areas of the country under the
eight-hour ozone NAAQS in an April 30, 2004 final rule (69 FR 23858).
On April 30, 2004, EPA also issued a final rule (69 FR 23951) entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 1'', referred to as the Phase 1 Rule. Among other
matters, this rule revoked the one-hour ozone NAAQS in most other areas
of the country, effective June 15, 2005. (See, 40 CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at
23996; and 70 FR 44470, August 3, 2005.) The Phase 1 Rule also set
forth how anti-backsliding principles will ensure continued progress
toward attainment of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS by identifying which
one-hour requirements remain applicable in an area after revocation of
the one-hour ozone NAAQS. On December 22, 2006, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated the
Phase 1 Rule. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. v. EPA, 472 F.3d
882 (DC Cir. 2006). Subsequently, in South Coast Air Quality Management
Dist. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1295 (DC Cir. 2007), in response to several
petitions for rehearing, the Court clarified that the Phase 1 Rule was
vacated only with regard to those parts of the rule that had been
successfully challenged. The court upheld the portions of the Phase 1
Rule relating to EPA's classification system under subpart 2. The
portions of the rule that were vacated do not affect this proposed
action.

B. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies With the One-hour
Ozone Standard?

    Although the one-hour ozone NAAQS as promulgated in 40 CFR 50.9
includes no discussion of specific data handling conventions, EPA's
publicly articulated position and the approach long since universally
adopted by the air quality management community is that the
interpretation of the one-hour ozone standard requires rounding ambient
air quality data consistent with the stated level of the standard,
which is 0.12 ppm. 40 CFR 50.9(a) states that: ``The level of the
national one-hour primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
for ozone * * * is 0.12 parts per million. * * * The standard is
attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with
maximum hourly average concentrations of 0.12 parts per million * * *
is equal to or less than 1, as determined by appendix H to this part.''
Thus, compliance with the NAAQS is based on comparison of air quality
concentrations with the standard and on how many days that standard has
been exceeded, adjusted for the number of missing days.
    For comparison with the NAAQS, EPA has clearly communicated the
data handling conventions for the one-hour ozone NAAQS in guidance
documents. As early as 1979, EPA issued guidance stating that the level
of our NAAQS dictates the number of significant figures to be used in
determining whether the standard was exceeded. The stated level of the
standard is taken as defining the number of significant figures to be
used in comparisons with the standard. For example, a standard level of
0.12 ppm means that measurements are to be rounded to two decimal
places (0.005 rounds up), and, therefore, 0.125 ppm is the smallest
concentration value in excess of the level of the standard. (See,
``Guideline for the Interpretation of Ozone Air Quality Standards,''
EPA-450/4-79-003, OAQPS No. 1.2-108, January 1979.) EPA has
consistently applied the rounding convention in this 1979 guideline.
See, 68 FR 19111 April 17, 2003, 68 FR 62043 October 31, 2003, and 69
FR 21719 April 22, 2004. Then, EPA determines attainment status under
the one-hour ozone NAAQS on the basis of the annual average number of
expected exceedances of the NAAQS over a three-year period. (See, 60 FR
3349 January 17, 1995 and see, also, ``General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' at
57 FR 13506 April 16, 1992 (``General Preamble''). EPA's determination
is based upon data that have been collected and quality-assured in
accordance with 40 CFR 58, and recorded in EPA's Air Quality System
(AQS) database, (formerly known as the Aerometric Information Retrieval
System (AIRS)). To account for missing data, the procedures found in
appendix H to 40 CFR 50 are used to adjust the actual number of
monitored exceedances of the standard to yield the annual number of
expected exceedances (``expected exceedance days'') at an air quality
monitoring site. Under EPA's policies, we determine if an area has
attained the one-hour ozone NAAQS by calculating, at each monitor, the
average expected number of days over the standard per year (i.e.,
``average number of expected exceedance days'') during the applicable
3-year period. See, generally, the General Preamble, 57 FR 13498, April
16, 1992 and

Memorandum from D. Kent Berry, Acting Director, Air Quality Management
Division, EPA, to Regional Air Office Directors; ``Procedures for
Processing Bump Ups and Extensions for Marginal Ozone Nonattainment
Areas,'' February 3, 1994. While the latter is explicitly applicable
only to marginal areas, the general procedures for evaluating
attainment in terms of the average number of expected exceedance days
during the applicable 3-year period in this memorandum apply regardless
of the initial classification of an area because all findings of
attainment are made pursuant to the same CAA requirements in section
181(b)(2).

C. How Does EPA Compute Whether an Area Complies With the Eight-hour
Ozone Standard?

    As noted later in Table 2, an area achieves attainment of the
eight-hour ozone standard when an area's monitoring sites all have a
design value of less than 0.085 ppm, calculated as described in 40 CFR
50, Appendix I.
    The design value is the average of each year's fourth highest
concentration, over a three year period, as described in Appendix I to
40 CFR 50. From 40 CFR 50, Appendix I, Section 2.2:

    The standard-related summary statistic is the annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration, expressed
in parts per million, averaged over three years. The 3-year average
shall be computed using the three most recent, consecutive calendar
years of monitoring data meeting the data completeness requirements
described in this appendix. The computed 3-year average of the
annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone
concentrations shall be expressed to three decimal places (the
remaining digits to the right are truncated.)

    As shown in Table 2, all of the sites have complete data and a
design value less than 0.085 ppm. All of the sites have met the
requirements of Appendix I of 40 CFR 50, which stipulates that in order
to be used for showing attainment of the standard, the three years of
data must have an average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring
data of greater than 90%, and no single year with less than 75% data
completeness.
    This proposed action does not deal with the ozone standard that EPA
established in 2008. A new set of requirements will be needed after
areas are designated as not attaining this new standard. Therefore,
today's proposed action, which affects requirements developed for the
1997 ozone standard, is not affected by the 2008 ozone standard, nor
does it presume what air quality designations will be for the 2008
ozone standard or what measures an area may need to attain that
standard.

D. Why Is EPA Determining If These Areas Are Attaining the Ozone
Standards?

    States have requested that EPA determine that certain areas have
met the applicable ozone standard. Also, in the course of periodic
reviews of air quality data, EPA has noted that several ozone
nonattainment areas in New Jersey and New York are now attaining the
one-hour and eight-hour standard. For the one-hour standard these areas
and their constituent counties are: in New Jersey, Warren County of the
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton nonattainment area and Atlantic and Cape May
Counties in the Atlantic City nonattainment area; in New York, Erie and
Niagara Counties in the Buffalo-Niagara Falls area, Chautauqua County
in the Jamestown nonattainment area, Dutchess and Orange Counties and
the portion of Orange County\2\ in the Poughkeepsie nonattainment area;
and the portion of Essex County above 4500 feet\3\ in the Whiteface
Mountain area. Air quality data from the last three years from these
areas is listed later in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For the one-hour standard, the other portion of Orange
County is in the New York City nonattainment area. The portions of
Orange County in each nonattainment area are listed in 40 CFR
81.333.
    \3\ Note that at the time EPA designated one-hour ozone
attainment areas for the 0.12 ppm standard, air monitoring data at
the summit of Whiteface Mountain violated the air quality standard
but an air quality monitor at the base of the mountain recorded
attainment of the standard. Therefore, only the portion of Essex
County above 4500 feet in the Whiteface Mountain area was designated
as nonattainment. (See 40 CFR 81.333.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Poughkeepsie one-hour nonattainment area was initially
determined to attain the one-hour standard (59 FR 18967) but later
violated the standard and was reclassified as nonattainment (59 FR
38000). New York State did not request that EPA make a determination
regarding the Poughkeepsie one-hour ozone nonattainment area. However,
EPA has sufficient air quality data that the Poughkeepsie nonattainment
area has attained the one-hour standard and is proposing to determine
that the area is in attainment of the one-hour ozone standard.
    For the eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas, on March 19, 2007 the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York)
requested EPA to find that air monitoring data from 2004 to 2006 were
showing attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard in various areas of
upstate New York. These areas were the Albany-Schenectady-Troy,
Jefferson County, Essex County and Rochester nonattainment areas. On
June 14, 2007, New York updated its submittal to document its public
review process, including notice and comment for the aforementioned
areas. EPA determined that the Albany-Schenectady-Troy, Jefferson
County, and Rochester nonattainment areas attained the eight-hour ozone
standard on March 25, 2008. (See 73 FR 15672.) At that time, EPA
deferred action on the Essex County area (the area around Whiteface
Mountain over 1900 feet\4\) since the air quality data at that time
were incomplete. EPA has reviewed additional air quality data since New
York's original request and these areas are still recording attainment
of the eight-hour ozone standard and the area in Essex County now has
sufficient data to show it is attaining the standard, as shown later in
Table 1. Recently, on July 30, 2009, New York submitted an updated
petition requesting that EPA find that the Poughkeepsie, Buffalo-
Niagara Falls and Jamestown areas have attained the eight-hour ozone
standard. The request included certified air quality data through the
2008 ozone season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Note that at the time EPA designated these areas, two air
monitoring monitors on Whiteface Mountain violated the air quality
standard but other air quality monitors nearest to Whiteface
Mountain, but sited at lower elevations than the monitors on
Whiteface Mountain, did not violate the standard, so only the
portion of Essex County above 1900 feet in the Whiteface Mountain
area was designated as nonattainment. (See 40 CFR 81.333.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New Jersey, in its State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the
Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard, submitted to EPA on October 29, 2007, requested that EPA find
that the Atlantic City one-hour nonattainment area and Warren County
(part of the Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton area) were attaining the one-
hour standard.

E. What Are the Likely Effects of These Determinations of Attainment?

    EPA's ozone implementation rule at 40 CFR 51.900-918, promulgated
under sections 172 and 182 of the Clean Air Act, describes the Clean
Air Act requirements for areas designated as not attaining the 1997
eight-hour ozone standard. For areas where air quality is attaining the
standard, section 51.918 of the implementation rule provides that, upon
a determination of attainment by EPA, the requirements for a state to
submit certain required planning SIPs related to attainment of the
eight-hour NAAQS, such as attainment demonstrations, reasonable further
progress plans and contingency

measures, shall be suspended. EPA's action only suspends the
requirements to submit the SIP revisions discussed above. If this
rulemaking is finalized and EPA subsequently determines after notice
and comment rulemaking in the Federal Register that any of these areas
have violated the standard, the basis for the suspension of these
requirements for that area would no longer exist, and the area would
thereafter have to address the pertinent requirements within a
reasonable period of time. EPA would establish that period taking into
account the individual circumstances surrounding the particular
submissions at issue.

F. How Are These Determinations of Attainment Different From a
Redesignation to Attainment?

    The determinations that EPA proposes with this Federal Register
notice, that air quality data show attainment of the ozone standard,
are not equivalent to the redesignation of the areas to attainment.
Using monitoring data to show attainment of the ozone NAAQS is only one
of the criteria set forth in CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) that must be
satisfied for an area to be redesignated to attainment. To be
redesignated, the state must submit and receive full approval of a
redesignation request for the area that satisfies all of the criteria
of section 107(d)(3)(E), including a demonstration that the improvement
in the area's air quality is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions and a fully-approved SIP meeting all of the applicable
requirements under section 110 and Part D and a fully-approved
maintenance plan.

III. Did These Areas Attain Their Respective Ozone Standards?

    In New York's original request, it certified the air quality data
submitted by the state for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 was accurate
and properly quality-assured and met state and EPA monitoring
requirements. New York submitted these data to EPA's Air Quality
System, where it is available to the public via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/
airs/airsaqs/. After New York submitted its petition, New York supplied
additional certified, quality-assured air quality data from 2007 and
2008 to EPA's Air Quality System database. EPA has reviewed these data
to determine if the areas proposed by New York are in attainment when
the additional data from 2007 and 2008 are included. Tables 1 and 2
summarize the ozone air quality data for areas in New York and include
EPA's evaluation of whether these areas meet EPA's requirements for
attaining the one- and eight-hour ozone NAAQS.
    New Jersey's air quality data from 2006 through 2008 show that
certain parts of the state are attaining the one-hour standard. These
data have been certified by the State of New Jersey as being accurate
and meeting EPA's requirements for quality. They are summarized in
Table 1, along with EPA's evaluation of whether these areas meet EPA's
requirements for attaining the one-hour ozone NAAQS. All of these data
are also available to the public via http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/
airsaqs/.

                                Table 1--Fourth Highest Concentrations and Design Values for the One-Hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Exceedences (Days over 0.124 ppm)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA AQS ID                        Site..............      Year    Valid/  Four highest daily peak one-hour ozone    Actual  Adjusted  3-year average ***
                                                                   total                   (ppm)                                 for
                                                                 days **                                                     missing
                                                                                data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ Area (includes Warren County, NJ)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42-077-0004.....................  Allentown, PA.....      2006   214/214      .115      .100      .098      .094         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   213/214      .104      .102      .090      .090         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   214/214      .100      .098      .091      .088         0       0.0
42-095-0025.....................  Freemansburg, PA..      2006   209/214      .111      .100      .094      .091         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   214/214      .105      .105      .093      .091         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   214/214      .107      .095      .088      .086         0       0.0
42-095-8000.....................  Wilson, PA........      2006   211/214      .118      .095      .093      .093         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   209/214      .105      .095      .094      .088         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   209/214      .106      .093      .085      .084         0       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Atlantic City, NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
34-001-0005.....................  Brigantine, NJ *..      2006   211/214      .107      .103      .102      .096         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   199/214      .086      .085      .084      .083         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2007   203/214      .109      .094      .089      .086         0       0.0
                                                          2008   203/214      .083      .081      .078      .078         0       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-001-0012.....................  Albany, NY........      2006   211/214      .086      .081      .078      .077         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   212/214      .114      .111      .091      .089         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   198/214      .107      .096      .089      .082         0       0.0
36-083-0004.....................  Rensselaer, NY....      2006   208/214      .085      .082      .080      .079         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   201/214      .099      .088      .087      .086         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   210/214      .097      .096      .090      .083         0       0.0
36-091-0004.....................  Saratoga, NY......      2006   212/214      .099      .086      .083      .082         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   202/214      .113      .096      .095      .090         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   212/214      .100      .095      .093      .088         0       0.0
36-093-0003.....................  Schenectady, NY...      2006   214/214      .079      .076      .074      .074         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   208/214      .100      .097      .081      .077         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   211/214      .096      .092      .078      .078         0       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                             Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-029-0002.....................  Amherst, NY.......      2006   210/214      .093      .092      .090      .090         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   212/214      .100      .098      .095      .094         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   210/214      .088      .087      .082      .080         0       0.0
36-063-1006.....................  Middleport, NY....      2006   183/214      .092      .088      .085      .081         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   214/214      .100      .097      .092      .090         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   212/214      .084      .081      .080      .079         0       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Essex Co, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-031-0002.....................  Summit Whiteface        2006   196/214      .081      .081      .080      .076         0       0.0  0.0
                                   Mtn., NY.
                                                          2007   197/214      .115      .107      .102      .094         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   203/214      .097      .085      .081      .080         0       0.0
36-031-0003.....................  Base, Whiteface         2006   211/214      .094      .083      .080      .077         0       0.0  0.0
                                   Mtn., NY.
                                                          2007   212/214      .103      .092      .091      .086         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   212/214      .087      .083      .077      .074         0       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Jefferson Co, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-045-0002.....................  Perch River, NY...      2006   213/214      .104      .094      .092      .091         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   213/214      .081      .080      .079      .078         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   213/214      .094      .091      .091      .090         0       0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Poughkeepsie, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-027-0007.....................  Millbrook, NY.....      2006   205/214      .085      .076      .074      .071         0       0.0  0.0
                                                          2007   214/214      .114      .106      .096      .090         0       0.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   210/214      .109      .099      .097      .091         0       0.0
36-071-5001.....................  Valley Central, NY      2006   214/214      .099      .093      .093      .088         0       0.0  1.0
                                                          2007   211/214      .145      .130      .116      .093         2       2.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   213/214      .129      .102      .098      .087         1       1.0
36-079-0005.....................  Mt. Ninham, NY....      2006   199/214      .102      .096      .091      .087         0       0.0  0.33
                                                          2007   209/214      .125      .110      .107      .107         1       1.0  Attainment.
                                                          2008   207/214      .099      .097      .092      .090         0      0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A new site was established nearby the old site. Both sites collected data in 2007 for comparison.
** Each of the sites listed above recorded 75% or more of the required data each year and therefore met EPA's data completeness standards.
*** Attainment occurs when the number of days over 0.124 ppm, averaged over three years, is less than 1.1 days per year.
Note: Ozone concentration data are in parts per million (ppm).

                               Table 2--Fourth Highest Concentrations and Design Values for the Eight-hour Ozone Standard
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Ozone Concentration data in parts per million (ppm)
                                                                     ----------------------------------------------------------------     Attainment?
          EPA AQS ID                   Site        % Data Collection                                                  3-year average   (design value <85
                                                   2006, 7, 8 (Avg.)  Fourth highest  Fourth highest  Fourth highest  (design value)         ppb)
                                                                           2006            2007            2008              *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Jamestown, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-013-0006...................  Dunkirk, NY......  96, 99, 99.......            .083            .086            .084            .084  Attaining.
                                                   (98).............
36-013-0011...................  Westfield , NY...  97, 97, 97.......            .075            .083            .072            .076  Attaining.
                                                   (97).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-029-0002...................  Amherst..........  98, 99, 98.......            .083            .085            .076            .081  Attaining.
                                                   (98).............
36-063-1006...................  Middleport.......  85, 100, 100.....            .074            .082            .074            .076  Attaining.
                                                   (95).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Essex Co (Whiteface Mtn), NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-031-0002...................  Summit Whiteface   88, 91, 94.......            .071            .084            .084            .079  Attaining.
                                 Mtn.              (91).............

36-031-0003...................  Base, Whiteface    98, 98, 98.......            .071            .076            .073            .073  Attaining.
                                 Mtn.              (98).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Poughkeepsie, NY Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
36-027-0007...................  Millbrook........  93, 100, 100.....            .064            .078            .081            .075  Attaining.
                                                   (97).............
36-071-5001...................  Valley Central...  100, 99, 99......            .077            .083            .080            .080  Attaining.
                                                   (99).............
36-079-0005...................  Mt. Ninham.......  92, 97, 97.......            .073            .085            .079            .079  Attaining.
                                                   (95).............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* A design value of 0.08 ppm is the goal for attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard promulgated in 1997. Therefore, any design value less than
  0.085 ppm shows attainment of the standard.

    As noted in Table 2, an area achieves attainment of the eight-hour
ozone standard when an area's monitoring sites all have a design value
of less than 0.085 ppm, calculated as described in 40 CFR 50, Appendix
I. In this case, all of the sites have a design value less than 0.085
ppm in 2008, which includes the most recent year of air quality data.
As noted in a previous Federal Register [February 14, 2008 at 73 FR
8637], the monitor at the summit of Whiteface Mountain recorded 64 and
74 percent of the required data in 2004 and 2005, respectively, which
was not sufficient to meet EPA's data completeness standards. Air
quality data from each of the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 meet EPA's
quality requirements and data completeness requirements and allow EPA
to determine this area is in attainment.
    Based on our review of the air quality data certified by the
states, attainment of the eight-hour ozone standard has been reached in
all of these areas in New York, and in all of the one-hour
nonattainment areas in New York, except for the New York City
nonattainment area. The areas in New Jersey outside the New York
nonattainment areas have met the one-hour standard.

IV. What Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA's review of air quality data from 2006 to 2008 shows that ozone
nonattainment areas of Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Jamestown, Essex County
(Whiteface Mountain), and Poughkeepsie in New York and, in New Jersey,
the Atlantic City and the Warren County portion of the Allentown-
Bethlehem-Easton areas attained the one-hour standard. Also, the
Jamestown, Buffalo-Niagara Falls, Essex County and Poughkeepsie areas
in New York have attained the 1997 eight-hour ozone standard.
    EPA's determinations are based on the most recent three years of
complete, quality-assured monitoring data at all ozone monitoring sites
in each of the areas. Specifically, data through the 2008 ozone season
demonstrates that these areas attain the standard. As provided in 40
CFR 51.918, if EPA's determinations that these areas have attained the
eight-hour ozone standard are made final, they would suspend the
requirements under section 182(b)(1) for submission of the reasonable
further progress plan and ozone attainment demonstration, the
requirements of section 172(c)(9) concerning submission of contingency
measures and any other planning SIP relating to attainment of the
eight-hour NAAQS. This suspension of requirements would be effective as
long as the areas continue to attain the 1997 eight-hour ozone
standard.
    EPA emphasizes that its proposed determinations are contingent upon
the continued monitoring and continued attainment and maintenance of
the eight-hour ozone NAAQS in these affected areas. If these
determinations are finalized and EPA subsequently determines, after
notice and comment rulemaking, that an area violated the standard, the
basis for the suspension of the planning requirements would no longer
exist, and the area would thereafter have to address the pertinent
requirements.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice. EPA will consider these comments before taking final action.
Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure
by submitting written comments to EPA as discussed in the ADDRESSES
section of this Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action proposes to make a determination based on air quality data, and
would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain Federal
requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.). Because this rule proposes to make a determination based on air
quality data, and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of
certain Federal requirements, it 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).
    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This proposed action also
does not have Federalism implications because it does

not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999),
because it merely proposes to make a determination based on air quality
data and would, if finalized, result in the suspension of certain
Federal requirements, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it proposes to determine
that air quality in the affected area is meeting Federal standards.
    The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply
because it would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when
determining the attainment status of an area, to use voluntary
consensus standards in place of promulgated air quality standards and
monitoring procedures that otherwise satisfy the provisions of the
Clean Air Act.
    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
    Under Executive Order 12898, EPA finds that this rule involves a
proposed determination of attainment based on air quality data and will
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any communities in the area, including
minority and low-income communities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E9-22932 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43655-43656]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2017-0079]

Notice of Application for Approval To Discontinue or Modify a
Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this provides the public notice that on July
14, 2017, Ann Arbor Railroad (AARR) and CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT)
jointly petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking
approval to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2017-0079.
    Applicants: Ann Arbor Railroad, Mr. John Vance, General Manager,
Operations Office, 4058 Chrysler Drive, Toledo, Ohio 43608; CSX
Transportation, Director Joint Facilities, 500 Water Street,
Jacksonville, FL 32202.
    AARR seeks to modify the Hallett Interlocking, at Toledo, Ohio, by
converting power-operated switches numbers 13A, 13B, 15, and 21 to
hand-operation. AARR signals 10L, 14R, 16L, 18L, 18R, 18RC, and 22R are
to be retired with signals 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 installed closer to
the diamond. CSXT signals 2L, 4L, and 6R will become CSXT 2, 4, and 6,
with new signal 8 installed. CSXT switch #20 to become CSXT switch #3.
    This modification is to be done in conjunction with the CSXT
positive train control (PTC) project.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the

petition, is available for review online at www.regulations.gov and in
person at the U.S. Department of Transportation's Docket Operations
Facility, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by November 2, 2017 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit,
including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.
See also http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy
notice of regulations.gov.

Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-19684 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 66590]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23178]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-5612]

Notice of Intention To Cancel Registration Pursuant to Section
203(h) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940

October 15, 2020.
    Notice is given that the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') intends to issue an order, pursuant to Section 203(h)
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the ``Act''), cancelling the
registration of EF Hutton Investments LLC [File No. 801-108464],
hereinafter referred to as the ``registrant.''
    Section 203(h) provides, in pertinent part, that if the Commission
finds that any person registered under Section 203, or who has pending
an application for registration filed under that section, is no longer
in existence, is not engaged in business as an investment adviser, or
is prohibited from registering as an investment adviser under section
203A, the Commission shall by order, cancel the registration of such
person.
    The registrant has not filed a Form ADV amendment with the
Commission as required by rule 204-1 under the Act and appears to not
be engaged in business as an investment adviser.\1\ Accordingly, the
Commission believes that reasonable grounds exist for a finding that
the registrant is no longer eligible to be registered with the
Commission as an investment adviser and that the registration should be
cancelled pursuant to section 203(h) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rule 204-1 under the Act requires any adviser that is
required to complete Form ADV to amend the form at least annually
and to submit the amendments electronically through the Investment
Adviser Registration Depository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notice is also given that any interested person may, by November 9,
2020, at 5:30 p.m., submit to the Commission in writing a request for a
hearing on the cancellation, accompanied by a statement as to the
nature of his or her interest, the reason for such request, and the
issues, if any, of fact or law proposed to be controverted, and he or
she may request that he or she be notified if the Commission should
order a hearing thereon. Any such communication should be emailed to
the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    At any time after November 9, 2020, the Commission may issue an
order cancelling the registration, upon the basis of the information
stated above, unless an order for a hearing on the cancellation shall
be issued upon request or upon the Commission's own motion. Persons who
requested a hearing, or who requested to be advised as to whether a
hearing is ordered, will receive any notices and orders issued in this
matter, including the date of the hearing (if ordered) and any
postponements thereof. Any adviser whose registration is cancelled
under delegated authority may appeal that decision directly to the
Commission in accordance with rules 430 and 431 of the Commission's
rules of practice (17 CFR 201.430 and 431).

ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Palascak, Senior Counsel at
202-551-6999; SEC, Division of Investment Management, Investment
Adviser Regulation Office, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-8549.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 200.30-5(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-23178 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 134 (Friday, July 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41839-41840]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16437]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0770; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-6]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Presidio, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Presidio, TX.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Presidio Lely
International Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, October 17, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On May 7, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace for the
Presidio, TX, area, creating controlled airspace at Presidio Lely
International Airport (78 FR 26558) Docket No. FAA-2012-0770.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received. Class E airspace designations are published in
paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective
September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, with an
extension to the east; and extending upward from 1,200 feet above the
surface within a 62.5-mile radius of the airport, at Presidio Lely
International Airport, Presidio, TX. Controlled airspace enhances the
safety and management of new standard instrument approach procedures
for IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Presidio Lely International
Airport, Presidio, TX.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Presidio, TX [New]

Presidio Lely International Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]38'03'' N., long. 104[deg]21'41'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Presidio Lely International Airport, and
within 2 miles each side of the 070[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 13.4 miles east of the
airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface within a 62.5 mile radius of the airport, excluding that
airspace within Mexico.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 8, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-16437 Filed 7-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75750-75751]
[DOCID:fr18de06-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0421; FRL-8258-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-
Alkali Plants (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 2046.03, OMB Control Number
2060-0542

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 17,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0421, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
2201T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr., Office of
Compliance, 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0421, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the

Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
, to submit or view public comments, access the

index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA

receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose public disclosure
is restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Title: NESHAP for Mercury Cell Chlor-Alkali Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 2046.03, OMB Control Number 2060-0542.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2007.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Mercury Emissions from Mercury Cell Chlor-
Alkali plants were promulgated on December 19, 2003. These standards
apply to existing facilities and new facilities that are part

of major source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions or a part of
an area source of HAP emissions.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities.
    Any owner/operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
five years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports
and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regional office.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 809
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Mercury cell chlor-alkali plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9.
    Frequency of Response: Semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 14,558.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $1,351,382 which is comprised of zero
annualized Capital Start Up costs, $74,000 annualized Operating and
Maintenance (O&M), and $1,277,382 annual Labor Costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: The number of respondents has not changed
and there are no program changes. However, there are adjustments for an
increase in labor hours and a decrease in costs as compared to the
currently ``active'' ICR.
    The adjustments result from the transition by the respondents from
initial compliance with the standard to continuing compliance with the
standard. The respondents achieved compliance over the past three years
by conducting performance tests and purchasing pollution monitors which
resulted in a small number of labor hours, but a relatively high
capital/startup cost. After achieving compliance, performance tests are
not required and capital/startup costs are low because pollution
monitors are a one-time, initial expense. However, the cost to maintain
the monitors is increased. The overall labor costs are higher because
the pollution levels must be recorded and compliance reports sent to
the appropriate regulatory authority.

    Dated: December 8, 2006.
Richard T. Westlund,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-21501 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 185 (Monday, September 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58880-58881]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23449]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67880; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Delete FINRA Rule 7064A (Late Fees)

September 18, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 17, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\
and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon receipt of this filing by the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to delete FINRA Rule 7640A (Late Fees).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The FINRA/Nasdaq TRF is a facility of FINRA that is operated by The
NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. (``NASDAQ OMX''). In connection with the
establishment of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, FINRA and NASDAQ OMX entered
into a limited liability company agreement (the ``LLC Agreement'').
Under the LLC Agreement, FINRA, the ``SRO Member,'' has sole regulatory
responsibility for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF. NASDAQ OMX, the ``Business
Member,'' is primarily responsible for the management of the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF's business affairs to the extent those affairs are not
inconsistent with the regulatory and oversight functions of FINRA. As
such, the Business Member establishes pricing for use of the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF, and such pricing is implemented pursuant to FINRA rules
that must be filed with the SEC and be consistent with the Act.\5\ In
addition, the Business Member is obligated to pay the cost of
regulation and is entitled to the profits and losses, if any, derived
from the operation of the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because there are two FINRA Trade Reporting Facilities
operated by different exchange Business Members competing for market
share (the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF and the FINRA/NYSE TRF), FINRA does not
take a position on whether the pricing for one TRF is more favorable
or competitive than the pricing for the other TRF.
    \6\ FINRA notes that the same contractual arrangement is in
place for the FINRA/NYSE TRF, with FINRA as the SRO Member and NYSE
as the Business Member. The LLC agreements for the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF
and the FINRA/NYSE TRF were submitted as part of the rule filings to
establish the respective TRFs and can be found in the FINRA Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 7640A, charges imposed by the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade
Reporting Facility that are past due 45 days or more are subject to a
late fee. This rule is identical to former NASD Rule 7080, which was
applicable to charges

imposed by the Nasdaq Market Center prior to Nasdaq exchange
registration and separation from FINRA (then NASD) in 2006. Prior to
2006, the business decision was made not to assess late fees under NASD
Rule 7080; however, the rule inadvertently was not deleted from the
rulebook and subsequently was included in the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF rules.
Because members historically have not been assessed late fees under
this rule and the Business Member has determined not to do so in the
future, FINRA is proposing to delete Rule 7640A.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Sections
15A(b)(5) and (6) of the Act,\8\ in particular, which require, among
other things, that FINRA rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system that FINRA operates or
controls, and that FINRA rules not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. FINRA
believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable, equitable and
non-discriminatory in that it is eliminating a fee provision that the
Business Member has determined is not necessary and the change applies
to all FINRA/Nasdaq TRF users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 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. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-043 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-043. 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 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 FINRA. 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-FINRA-2012-043, and should be submitted on or before October 15,
2012.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\11\

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23449 Filed 9-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P